Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007. with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/fourphasesofamerOOmoorrich 


FOUR   PHASES  OF 
AMERICAN     DEVELOPMENT 

FEDERALISM— DEMOCRACY— IMPERIALISM— EXPANSION 


BY 

JOHN   BASSETT   MOORE,  LL.D., 

PROFESSOR  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY,  NEW  YORK  ;  SOMETIME 

ASSISTANT  SECRETARY   OP   STATE   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES  ;    AUTHOR    OF   A 

DIGEST    OF    INTERNATIONAL    LAW,    OF   A    HISTORY   AND    DIGEST   OF 

INTERNATIONAL  ARBITRATIONS,  OF  "AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

ITS  SPIRIT  AND   ACHIEVEMENTS,"    ETC. 


>    ,     '    i' 


BALTIMORE 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

1912 


o 


Copyright,  1912, 

BY 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PKESS 


TO 
J.  A.  M 


IN  REMEMBRANCE  OF 

HIS  FONDNESS  FOR  POLITICAL  HISTORY 

AND  HIS  LOVE  OF  THE  TRUTH 


241288 


FOREWOED 

The  four  lectures  embraced  in  the  present 
volume  were  delivered  at  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University,  in  April  last,  on  the  foundation 
established  there  by  James  Schouler,  lawyer 
and  historian,  for  lectures  in  history  and 
political  science.  Their  object  is  to  give,  not 
a  chronological  detail  of  related  or  unre- 
lated incidents,  but  rather  a  general  survey  of 
important  movements,  explained  in  the  light  of 
the  causative  facts,  whether  these  be  particular 
acts,  or  human  traits  and  tendencies  disclosed 
by  men  acting  in  the  mass  or  individually. 
This  is,  in  the  writer's  opinion,  the  historian's 
primary  task.  To  frame  indictments,  to  con- 
demn and  exculpate,  to  distribute  censures  and 
pronounce  encomiums,  on  the  strength  of  pre- 
conceptions as  to  what  ought  to  have  taken 
place,  belongs  to  the  historical  moralist,  the  no- 
bility of  whose  aims  is  supposed  to  justify  him 
in  exacting  from  the  past,  as  the  price  of  its 
exoneration,  an  anticipatory  conformity  to  his 
own  views.  The  function  of  the  historian,  if 
apparently  less  exalted,  is  more  truthful.    It  is 

5 


Q  FOBEWOBD 

also  more  difficult  of  performance,  and  requires 
a  wider  range  of  thought,  of  investigation  and 
of  sympathies.  History  is  the  drama  of  the 
ages  reduced  to  writing.  The  historian,  like 
the  dramatist,  may  also  be  and  in  a  qualified 
sense  necessarily  is  a  moralist,  since  every  pic- 
ture of  life  conveys  a  lesson  of  some  kind.  But 
his  first  duty  is  that  of  exposition.  He  deals 
in  realities.  His  chief  end  is  to  recreate  the 
past,  so  that  the  reader  may  live  in  it  and, 
seeing  things  as  they  were,  understand  things 
as  they  are. 

J.  B.  M. 

October  21,  1911. 


CONTENTS 


PAGX 

LECTURE  I 
Federalism 9 


LECTURE  II 
Democracy 47 

LECTURE  III 
Imperialism 96 

LECTURE  IV 
Expansion 147 

Index 205 

7 


LECTUEE  I 

Federalism 

History,  as  popularly  conceived  and  even  as 
sometimes  written,  may  be  described  as  the 
philosophy  of  hindsight,  devoted  to  the  main- 
tenance of  one  or  more  of  the  following  pro- 
positions: First,  that  whatever  is  was  inevit- 
able; secondly,  that  whatever  is  was  wisely 
foreordained;  thirdly,  that  whatever  is  is  for 
the  best;  and  fourthly,  that  whatever  is  is  for 
the  worst.  Conformably  to  these  points  of) 
view,  the  proponents  of  the  several  theories 
may  be  classed  as  fatalists,  as  providentialists, 
as  optimists,  and  as  pessimists. 

That  these  preconceptions,  as  popularly  en- 
tertained, have  had,  still  have,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  have  an  important  and  at  times  a 
decisive  influence  upon  the  course  of  events,  is 
a  fact  which  should  be  regarded  as  almost  self- 
evident.  The  conduct  of  a  people  under  given 
circumstances  must  always  be  powerfully  af- 
fected by  the  view  which  it  takes  of  its  mission 
and  destiny.  If  the  prevalent  tendency  be 
fatalistic,  there  will  naturally  be  a  ready  sub- 


IXi'-' ''  '  •  ■' '  AMEEicA'N  d:evelopment 

mission  to  ills  which  a  more  energetic  and  less 
acquiescent  frame  of  mind  would  lead  the  pub- 
lic to  resist  and  correct.  If  the  popular  con- 
viction be  providentialist,  we  may  expect  the 
general  conduct  to  be  characterized  by  an  ener- 
getic self-confidence,  with  a  tendency,  perhaps 
often  unconscious,  towards  the  aggressive  and 
occasionally  unscrupulous  removal  of  obstacles 
that  stand  in  the  way  of  what  is  conceived  to 
be  desirable.  The  same  tendency,  although  it 
may  sometimes  be  observable,  is  much  less 
marked  in  the  optimist,  whose  genial  disposi- 
tion leads  him  to  minimize  and  even  to  over- 
look the  obstructions  that  lie  in  his  path  as 
well  as  the  evils  that  flourish  around  him. 
He  is  tolerant  of  the  growth  and  accumulation 
of  unwholesome  conditions,  because  he  does  not 
believe  that  they  can  produce  eventual  and 
permanent  harm.  His  antithesis  is  found  in 
the  pessimist,  who,  because  he  can  see  no  per- 
manent good  in  anything,  logically  assumes  to- 
wards the  transactions  of  his  time  a  negative 
attitude,  and  looks  upon  government  as  some- 
thing to  be  tolerated  but  not  to  be  encouraged. 
With  all  these  phases  of  the  popular  mind, 
the  historian  is  obliged  to  deal.  He  must  de- 
tect their  existence  and  observe  their  opera- 


FEDEBALISM  H 

tion.  But  he  ceases  to  be  a  trustworthy  guide 
when  he  identifies  himself  with  any  of  the 
classes  whose  views  and  tendencies  have  been 
described.  In  proportion  as  he  does  this,  he 
ceases  to  be  a  historian  and  becomes  merely  a 
moralist. 

The  primary  function  of  the  historian  is  that 
of  an  interpreter  of  events.  In  order  that  he 
may  discharge  this  function,  he  must  deal  with 
facts  as  causes  rather  than  as  ultimate  verities. 
He  should,  first  of  all,  tell  us  what  happened, 
and  why  it  came  to  happen ;  and  it  is  only  after 
he  has  discharged  this  duty,  that  he  is  in  a 
position  to  assume  the  role  of  a  monitor.  It  is 
a  notorious  fact  that  important  determinations, 
profoundly  affecting  the  course  of  history,  have 
been  based  upon  erroneous  assumptions  of 
fact  or  of  right  or  perhaps  of  both.  False  in- 
formation and  false  legal  conceptions  may  have 
been  the  decisive  factors.  Nevertheless,  the 
false  information  and  the  false  legal  concep- 
tions are,  for  the  purposes  of  the  historian, 
the  causative  facts  with  which  he  must  pri- 
marily deal ;  for  it  is  upon  the  causative  rather 
than  the  ultimate  facts  that  an  intelligent  con- 
ception of  national  character, — of  its  strength 
and  its  weakness,  of  its  power  of  self-restraint 


12  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

and  its  impatience  of  control,  of  its  dispositions 
and  desires, — can  be  formed.  When  the  his- 
torian has  discharged  this  function,  and  by  cor- 
rectly interpreting  the  past  has  furnished  a 
clue  to  the  possibilities  or  probabilities  of  the 
future,  he  may  properly  assume  the  function  of 
a  teacher  of  morality,  and  upon  the  strength  of 
ultimate  verities,  gleaned  from  sources  which 
were  unknown  or  not  open  to  inspection,  ad- 
monish the  people  of  their  liability  to  error,  of 
their  mistakes,  misdeeds  and  shortcomings. 
Eeverse  the  process,  and  we  banish  from  his- 
tory the  human,  the  dramatic,  the  moving  ele- 
ments, and  suppress  and  exclude  from  our  es- 
timation the  currents  of  popular  feeling,  the 
workings  of  the  human  spirit,  which  so  often 
override  and  sweep  away  the  barriers  created 
by  political,  legal  and  moral  instruction. 

Bead  in  the  light  of  the  causative  facts,  it 
may  be  affirmed  that  there  is  no  people  whose 
history  is  more  consistently  characterized  by 
the  display  of  certain  dominant  traits  than  is 
that  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Com- 
posed in  the  main  of  adventurous  and  enter- 
prising settlers  from  the  countries  of  Europe, 
and  accustomed  to  the  risks  and  dangers  that 
attend  the  colonization  and  development  of  a 


FEDERALISM  13 

vast  continent  previously  uninhabited  by  civil- 
ized men,  they  have  ever  exhibited  a  love  of 
liberty  and  a  devotion  to  popular  government, 
combined  with  a  restless  energy,  a  self-reliance, 
a  directness  of  action,  and  a  sense  of  power 
which  have  determined  their  conduct  under  all 
the  various  circumstances  that  have  arisen  in 
the  course  of  their  national  career. 

It  was  to  be  expected  that  a  people  possess- 
ing these  characteristics  would  not  indefinitely 
continue  to  submit  to  the  old  colonial  system. 
The  British  colonial  system  was  not  worse  than 
the  colonial  systems  of  the  other  European 
powers.  It  was  indeed  in  some  respects  the 
most  liberal  of  all  of  them;  and,  under  what 
Burke  called  the  policy  of  **  wise  and  salutary 
neglect,''  the  British  colonists  had  enjoyed  a 
large  measure  of  political  freedom.  In  reality 
the  sense  of  political  liberty  served  only  to 
render  the  system  of  commercial  restriction 
the  more  insupportable.  This  system  was 
based  upon  the  principle  of  monopoly,  which 
universally  governed  the  trade  relations  of 
colonies  in  those  days.  With  slight  exceptions, 
the  trade  of  the  colony  was  restricted  to  ex- 
changes with  the  mother  country.  The  ships 
of  the  mother  country  were  the  only  vessels 


14  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

O 

permitted  to  enter  the  colonial  parts,  and  the 
principal  colonial  products  were  allowed  to  be 
exported  only  to  the  mother  country. 

The  American  Eevolution  was  the  formal  and 
final  protest  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
against  this  system.  It  is  true  that  when,  as 
the  result  of  measures  taken  by  committees  of 
correspondence  and  other  local  bodies,  the  Con- 
tinental Congress  first  assembled  in  Philadel- 
phia on  September  5,  1774,  public  opinion  had 
not  advanced  to  the  contemplation  of  measures 
of  separation;  but,  after  Lexington  and  Con- 
cord, events  moved  rapidly.  The  crisis  was 
hastened  by  the  royal  speech  to  Parliament  of 
October  26,  1775,  the  text  of  which  reached 
Boston  and  Philadelphia  early  in  the  follow- 
ing year.  In  this  speech  the  king,  avowing  his 
belief  that  the  leaders  in  America  had,  while 
protesting  their  loyalty,  been  engaged  in  a  con- 
spiracy against  him  and  in  preparing  for  a 
general  revolt,  stated  that  he  had  increased  his 
naval  forces  and  greatly  augmented  his  land 
forces,  and  declared  his  purpose  to  **  put  a 
speedy  end  ''  to  the  disorders  **  by  the  most 
decisive  exertions. '*  Coincidently  with  the  re- 
ception of  this  speech,  Norfolk,  the  most  con- 
siderable   and    most    flourishing    commercial 


FEDERALISM  15 

town  in  Virginia,  was  destroyed  by  Lord  Dun- 
more,  entailing  a  loss  estimated  at  three  hun- 
dred thousand  pounds  sterling. 

The  significance  of  these  events  was  read  and 
magnified  in  the  blaze  of  light  flashed  across 
the  sky  by  Paine 's  Common  Sense,  which,  as 
Dr.  Eush  declared,  **  burst  forth  from  the  press 
with  an  effect  that  has  been  rarely  produced  by 
types  and  paper,  in  any  age  or  country.*' 
Richard  Henry  Lee,  m  a  letter  to  Washington, 
owned  himself  convinced  by  its  arguments  *  *  of 
the  necessity  of  separation.'*  Washington, 
writing  to  Joseph  Reed,  January  31, 1776,  said : 
**  A  few  more  of  such  flaming  arguments  as  were 
exhibited  at  Falmouth  and  Norfolk,  added  to 
the  sound  doctrine  and  unanswerable  reason- 
ing contained  in  the  pamphlet  Common  Sense, 
will  not  leave  numbers  at  a  loss  to  decide  upon 
the  propriety  of  a  separation."  The  argu- 
ment of  Paine  was  not,  however,  solely  an  ap- 
peal for  separation ;  it  was  also  a  call  to  union. 
**  The  sun,"  declared  Paine  in  a  burst  of  elo- 
quence, **  never  shone  on  a  cause  of  greater 
worth.  'Tis  not  the  affair  of  a  city,  a  county, 
a  province,  or  a  kingdom,  but  of  a  continent  of 
at  least  one-eighth  part  of  the  habitable  globe. 
'Tis  not  the  concern  of  a  day,  a  year,  or  an 


16  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

age;  posterity  are  virtually  involved  in  the 
contest,  and  will  be  more  or  less  aiTected  even 
to  the  end  of  time,  by  the  proceedings  now. 
Now  is  the  seed-time  of  continental  union,  faith 
and  honor.'' 

Even  before  the  formal  act  of  separation, 
the  Continental  Congress  had  begun  to  act  as 
if  it  represented  a  new  nation.  Although  its 
powers  were  wholly  undefined,  it  organized  it- 
self for  the  conduct  of  foreign  as  well  as  of 
domestic  affairs,  and  proceeded  to  appoint 
diplomatic  representatives  to  the  European 
powers.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
made  by  **  the  Eepresentatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  General  Congress  As- 
sembled, ...  in  the  name  and  by  authority  of 
the  good  people  "  of  the  colonies;  and  it  de- 
clared that  the  *  ^  united  colonies  ' '  were  and  of 
right  ought  to  be  **  free  and  independent 
states,''  and  that  as  such  they  had  *^  full  power 
to  levy  war,  conclude  peace,  contract  alliances, 
establish  commerce,  and  to  do  all  other  acts  and 
things  which  independent  states  may  of  right 
do." 

Nor  was  the  Congress  backward  In  asserting 
the  independence  which  it  had  declared  and 
the  rights  which  were  conceived  to  l)e  incident 


FEDERALISM  17 

to  that  condition.  Early  in  the  autumn  of 
1776  it  was  reported  that  Portugal  had  resolved 
upon  the  exclusion  of  American  vessels  from 
her  ports.  In  this  conjuncture  Congress  found 
an  adviser  whose  views  were  not  lacking 
either  in  energy  or  in  imagination.  Among  the 
most  active  agents  of  the  United  States  in  for- 
eign affairs  at  that  time  was  the  author  of 
Le  Manage  de  Figaro,  Beaumarchais,  who, 
although  generally  known  only  as  a  dramatist, 
was  not  devoid  of  skill  in  political  and  diplo- 
matic intrigue.  Beaumarchais,  perhaps  in- 
stinctively thinkmg  of  stage  effects,  advised 
Congress  to  declare  war  against  Portugal  and 
send  a  fleet  to  the  Brazils.  Spain,  long  resent- 
ful against  Portugal,  whom  she  desired  to  re- 
conquer, would,  he  argued,  be  interested,  and 
might  be  engaged  to  make  a  like  declaration, 
and,  thus  becoming  in  effect  an  ally  of  the 
United  States,  would  open  her  American  ports 
to  their  armed  vessels  and  to  their  privateers 
with  prizes  made  upon  the  Portuguese.  Eng- 
land would  then  be  obliged  to  go  to  PortugaPs 
assistance,  and  France,  while  aiding  Spain 
under  the  Family  Compact,  would  also  have  an 
excuse  for  opening  her  ports  to  the  Americans.^ 

1  Wharton 's  Dip.  Cor.  Am.  Eev.,  II,  146.     See,  also,  pp.  14S, 
188. 

2 


18  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

This  was  a  scheme  ambitious  enough  to  satisfy 
the  most  enterprising  disposition,  but  the  Con- 
gress did  not  shrink  from  its  contemplation; 
for,  on  December  30,  1776,  the  commissioners 
to  the  courts  of  France  and  Spain  were  directed 
to  consult  together  and  prepare  a  treaty  of 
commerce  and  alliance  similar  to  that  first  pro- 
posed to  France,  in  which  it  should  be  pro- 
vided that  if  Spain  would  join  the  United  States 
in  the  war  against  Great  Britain,  the  United 
States  would  aid  Spain  in  reducing  the  town 
and  harbor  of  Pensacola,  and,  in  case  it  should 
be  true  that  Portugal  had  insultingly  expelled 
American  vessels  from  her  ports,  or  confiscated 
any  of  them,  would  also  declare  war  against 
the  Portuguese  king,  if  that  measure  should  be 
*'  agreeable  to  and  supported  by  the  Courts  of 
France  and  Spain/'  ^  Franklin,  who  summar- 
ized these  instructions  as  meaning  in  effect 
that  the  United  States,  in  case  France  and 
Spain  would  enter  into  the  war,  would  *  *  assist 
the  former  in  the  conquest  of  the  British  sugar 
islands,  and  the  latter  in  the  conquest  of  Por- 
tugal,'' quietly  remarked,  in  a  letter  to  one  of 
his  fellow-commissioners  in  France:  **  You 
will  see  by  the  date  of  the  resolution  relating 

i  Journals  of  Contmental  Congress,  VI,  1054,  1057„ 


FEDEBALISM  19 

to  Portugal  .  .  .  that  the  Congress  was  stout 
in  the  midst  of  their  difficulties.''  ^ 

As  the  war  proceeded,  with  its  mingled  vic- 
tories and  defeats,  the  necessity  was  felt  for 
a  closer  and  more  definite  association.  The 
capture  of  Burgoyne  and  his  army  at  Saratoga 
led  directly  and  immediately  to  the  conclusion, 
in  February,  1778,  of  the  treaties  of  commerce 
and  alliance  with  France.  These  treaties  were 
designed  not  only  to  compel  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  independence  by  Great  Britain,  but 
also  to  assure  the  continuance  of  that  inde- 
pendence when  once  it  had  been  established. 
They  looked  to  the  future  as  well  as  to  the 
present,  and  brought  a  new  sense  of  respon- 
sibility as  well  as  of  power. 

In  the  same  year  there  were  formulated  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  —  a  loose  bond  of 
union,  but  an  important  step  in  the  federal 
direction. 

It  was  not  until  March  2,  1781,  when  the 
ratification  of  the  last  of  the  thirteen  States 
had  been  secured,  that  Congress  assembled 
under  this  new  form  of  government ;  but,  fact 
running    ahead    of    formula — a    phenomenon 

1  Franklin  to  Arthur  Lee,  March  21,  1777,  Wharton,  Dip.  Cor. 
Am.  Eev.,  II,  297. 


20  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

often  produced  by  pressure  of  circumstances — 
Congress  had  already  taken  steps  to  assure  a 
more  efficient  conduct  of  foreign  affairs.  For 
this  the  Articles  of  Confederation  did  not 
specially  provide.  "Writing  to  John  Jay,  in 
July,  1780,  John  Lovell,  a  member  of  Congress 
form  Massachusetts,  said:  '*  There  is  said  to  be 
a  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs ;  each  member 
is  loaded  with  a  variety  of  businesfi^ ;  two  have 
amiable  wives  near  Philadelphia;  I  miss  the 
gentlemen,  therefore,  frequently."  In  a  letter 
to  Franklin  in  the  following  October,  Lovell 
stated  that  he  was  the  only  member  of  the 
committee  then  attending  the  Congress,  and 
that  the  committee  had  not  had  a  secretary  or 
a  clerk  since  Thomas  Paine 's  resignation.  In 
these  circumstances  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  consider  a  plan  for  a  Department  of  For- 
eign Affairs.  Its  report  was  presented  to  Con- 
gress on  January  10,  1781,  and  was  adopted. 
The  report  recited  that  **  the  extent  and  the 
rising  power  "  of  the  United  States  entitled 
them  *^  to  a  place  among  the  great  potentates 
of  Europe,"  while  their  **  political  and  com- 
mercial interests  "  pointed  out  *^  the  propriety 
of  cultivating  with  them  a  friendly  correspon- 
dence and  connexion;"  and  that,  in  order  to 


FEDEBALISM  21 

render  such  an  intercourse  advantageous,  there 
must  be  *  *  a  competen  t  knowledge  of  the  in- 
terests, views,  relations,  and  systems  of  those 
potentates.''  In  order  to  attain  these  ends  and 
insure  the  regularity  of  correspondence,  it 
was  recommended  that  '*  a  fixed  and  perma- 
nent office  for  the  department  of  foreign  af- 
fairs ought  forthwith  to  be  established,  as  a 
remedy  against  the  fluctuations,  the  delay,  and 
indecision  "  to  which  the  existing  method  of 
managing  foreign  affairs  was  exposed.  It  was 
therefore  resolved  that  an  office  for  the  depart- 
ment of  foreign  affairs  should  immediately  be 
established,  and  that  it  should  be  administered 
by  a  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Kobert  E. 
Livingston  was  appointed  to  this  office. 

But,  of  all  the  acts  which  looked  towards 
future  union,  none  was  more  interesting  or 
more  important  than  the  treaty  by  which  the 
war  was  brought  to  a  close.  Not  only  was  the 
independence  of  the  United  States  acknowl- 
edged, but  a  settlement  of  boundaries  was  ob- 
tained which  fairly  startled  all  the  world  ex- 
cept the  self-confident  people  to  whom  the  con- 
cession was  made.  Eeaching  far  to  the  North, 
then  running  southwesterly  to  the  45th  parallel 
of    North    latitude    and    thence    to    the    St. 


% 


22  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Lawrence  Eiver,  the  line  continued  westerly 
through  the  middle  of  that  river  and  the  Great 
Lakes,  till,  by  a  northwesterly  deflection,  it 
reached  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  and  the  Missis- 
sippi Eiver.  The  Mississippi  then  became  the 
boundary,  until,  at  the  31st  parallel  of  N.  lati- 
tude, the  dominions  of  Spain  were  reached  on 
the  South.  The  line  was  then  drawn  due  East 
to  the  middle  of  the  river  Apalachicola  or 
Catahouche,  then  along  the  middle  of  that  river 
to  its  junction  with  the  Flint  Eiver,  thence 
straight  to  the  head  of  St.  Mary's  Eiver,  and 
down  the  middle  of  the  St.  Mary's  to  the  At- 
lantic Ocean.  Besides  acquiring  this  imperial 
domain,  the  people  of  the  United  States  ob- 
tained an  acknowledgment  of  their  right  to 
fish  on  the  banks  of  Newfoundland  and  in  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  the  liberty  to  take 
fish  on  the  coasts  of  the  British  dominions  in 
America,  and  to  dry  and  cure  fish  in  the  un- 
settled bays,  harbors  and  creeks  of  Nova 
Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and  Labrador. 

There  was,  however,  in  the  treaty  another 
clause  which,  although  it  would  not  attract  the 
special  attention  of  the  casual  reader,  was  de- 
stined to  exert  an  important  influence  upon  the 
formation  of  the  future  federal  union.    When 


FEDEBALISM  23 

the  war  of  the  revolution  broke  out  and  amic- 
able relations  between  Great  Britain  and  her 
colonies  were  interrupted,  large  sums  were 
naturally  due  from  the  inhabitants  of  the  one 
country  to  those  of  the  other  for  debts  con- 
tracted in  the  usual  course  of  trade.  In  these 
circumstances,  some  of  the  American  States 
during  the  war  passed  acts  of  sequestration 
and  confiscation,  which  provided  that  debts  due 
to  British  subjects  might  be  paid  into  the 
State  treasuries,  and  that  such  payment  should 
constitute  an  effectual  answer  to  any  suits  which 
might  afterwards  be  brought  for  their  recov- 
ery. It  was  foreseen  that,  after  the  conclusion 
of  peace,  although  the  courts  of  the  country 
would  once  more  be  open  to  British  subjects, 
these  statutes  would  serve  as  a  bar  to  the  re- 
covery of  debts.  In  the  negotiations  at  Paris, 
the  British  representatives  coupled  the  ques- 
tion of  the  recovery  of  debts  with  that  of  com- 
pensation for  the  loyalists  whose  estates  in 
America  had  been  confiscated  during  the  war. 
When  these  demands  were  first  brought  for- 
ward, Franklin  and  Jay  answered  that  the 
matter  was  one  that  belonged  exclusively  to 
the  several  States.  John  Adams,  on  his  ar- 
rival in  Paris,  announced  a  different  opinion. 


24  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

He  assumed  bold  national  ground.  While  op- 
posing the  compensation  of  the  Tories,  he  de- 
clared that  he  had  **  no  notion  of  cheating 
anybody ;''  that  the  question  of  paying  debts 
and  of  compensating  Tories  were  distinct ;  and 
that  he  would  agree  that  Congress  should  re- 
commend to  the  States  the  opening  of  their 
courts  for  the  recovery  of  all  just  debts. 
When  the  treaty  was  made,  it  went  farther. 
It  did  not  recommend;  it  stipulated  (Art.  IV.) 
in  positive  terms  **  that  creditors  on  either  side 
shall  meet  with  no  lawful  impediment  to  the 
recovery  of  the  full  value,  in  sterling  money,  of 
all  bona  fide  debts  heretofore  contracted.'' 
By  this  Article,  power  was  assumed  not  only 
to  annul  the  legislation  of  the  States  on  the 
particular  subject,  but  to  annul  it  retroactively. 
In  their  report  to  Congress,  the  American  plen- 
ipotentiaries, Adams,  Franklin,  Jay,  and  Henry 
Laurens,  declared  the  opinion  that  it  apper- 
tained solely  to  Congress,  in  whom  exclusively 
were  vested  the  rights  of  making  war  and 
peace,  to  pass  acts  against  the  subjects  of  a 
power  with  which  the  confederacy  might  be 
at  war.  In  this  opinion  the  Congress  may  be 
assumed  to  have  concurred,  since  it  ratified  the 
treaty  without  amendment. 


FEDERALISM  25 

Wlien  the  stress  and  pressure  of  war  were 
removed,  the  tendency  towards  federalism  was 
naturally  relaxed.  The  Articles  of  Confeder- 
ation, as  is  well  known,  were  utterly  inadequate 
to  the  purposes  of  a  federal  government,  es- 
pecially in  time  of  peace,  when  limitations  of 
power  were  more  likely  to  be  strictly  kept.  As 
they  did  not  operate  directly  upon  the  people, 
but  only  upon  the  States,  they  tended  to  con- 
firm the  conception  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
various  States,  which  were  the  successors  of 
colonies  previously  separate  and  independent, 
had  no  common  or  national  allegiance.  The 
power,  which  Congress  possessed  under  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  to  make  requisitions 
upon  the  States,  was  in  effect  only  recommenda- 
tory. Each  State  levied  its  own  duties,  and 
made  its  own  commercial  regulations.  From 
this  condition  of  things,  there  resulted  not 
only  discord  but  also  feebleness.  The  people 
of  the  United  States  were  not  slow  to  per- 
ceive this  fact.  Their  efforts  to  form  commer- 
cial agreements  were  frustrated  by  their  in- 
ability to  assure  uniform  action  on  the  part 
of  the  several  States.  The  government  of  the 
Confederation  was  unable  to  create  and  main- 
tain an  army  and  navy.     The  frontiers  re- 


26  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

mained  undefended.  Public  credit  was  aban- 
doned, and  loans  contracted  during  the  war 
remained  undischarged.  Commerce  declined; 
the  values  of  land  decreased,  private  credit  was 
bad,  money  was  scarce  and  of  uncertain  value. 
Nor  was  this  all ;  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
of  peace  remained  unexecuted  and  ineffective. 
The  treaty  had  looked  to  the  co-operation  of 
the  Contracting  Parties  in  obtaining  from 
Spain  the  right  or  privilege  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi  Eiver,  but  the  hope  of  co-operation 
proved  to  be  illusory.  Immediately  after  the 
peace,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  sent 
John  Adams  as  minister  to  the  Court  of  Lon- 
don, but  the  British  Government  did  not  deem 
it  worth  while  reciprocally  to  send  a  minister 
to  the  United  States,  where  there  appeared  to 
be  no  efficient  national  authority.  When  British 
creditors  entered  the  courts  of  the  several 
States  and  sought  to  recover  their  debts  in 
conformity  with  the  terms  of  the  peace,  the 
courts  held  themselves  to  be  bound  by  the  acts 
of  their  legislatures,  and  declined  to  give  ef- 
fect to  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty.  Mean- 
while Great  Britain  refused  to  withdraw  her 
forces  from  the  United  States,  and  continued  to 
hold  important  posts  as  a  guarantee  for  the 


FEDERALISM  27 

fulfillment  of  tlie  obligations  of  the  treaty,  es- 
pecially with  regard  to  the  recovery  of  debts. 
In  these  circumstances  the  American  people, 
casting  local  jealousies  for  the  moment  aside, 
advanced  in  a  practical  spirit  to  the  assertion 
of  the  nationality  which  logically  resulted  from 
their  separation  from  Great  Britain.  In  the 
early  days  of  the  revolutionary  movement, 
when  government  was  beginning  to  dissolve, 
Patrick  Henry  is  reported  to  have  declared  that 
he  was  **  not  a  Virginian  but  an  American," 
that  **  all  America  ''  was  **  thrown  into  one 
mass."  ^  The  need  of  concert  was  no  less  ur- 
gent in  1787.  Government  was  again  dis- 
solved. It  was  evident  that  independence  could 
be  saved  from  failure  only  by  united  action, 
definitely  and  permanently  assured.  Provision 
must  be  made  and  made  at  once  for  the  com- 
mon defence,  the  preservation  of  public  peace, 
the  regulation  of  commerce,  and  the  superin- 
tendence of  foreign  intercourse. 

Everyone  is  familiar  with  the  encomium  of 
Gladstone,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  the  most  remarkable  document  ever 
proceeding  at  one  stroke  from  the  brain  and 
purpose  of  man.    But  the  most  remarkable  f ea- 

1  Works  of  John  Adairs,  II,  366-368. 


28  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

ture  of  this  remarkable  document  is  the  direct- 
ness and  completeness  with  which  the  framers 
performed  their  task.  Having  set  out  upon  the 
path  of  federation,  they  did  not  occupy  them- 
selves in  devising  half-way  measures  and  cau- 
tious expedients,  but  sought  to  found  and  did 
found  a  truly  national  union.  It  is  a  common 
thing  to  extol  the  foresight  and  provident  wis- 
dom of  the  Fathers;  but,  while  this  is  alto- 
gether proper,  those  qualities  are  sometimes 
dwelt  upon  so  exclusively  as  to  cause  us  to  lose 
sight  of  the  influence  of  immediate  conditions 
upon  their  labors  and  to  be  blind  to  peculiarly 
obvious  historical  facts.  For  instance,  we  con- 
stantly hear  the  desire  expressed  for  the  cre- 
ation of  a  court  among  nations  ^*  like  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States,''  for  the  pur- 
pose of  settling  international  differences  and 
ensuring  universal  and  permanent  peace.  The 
expression  of  such  a  wish  carries  with  it  a 
deserved  tribute  to  the  great  and  useful  service 
daily  rendered  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  by  that  exalted  tribunal,  but  it  evi- 
dently overlooks  the  rather  serious  episode  of 
the  war  between  the  States  as  well  as  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  deliverance  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  was  the  logical 


FEDEBALISM  29 

forerunner  of  that  great  convulsion.  To  say 
that  the  Fathers,  had  they  been  endowed  with 
supernatural  powers,  might  have  foreseen  and 
guarded  against  such  unhappy  contingencies, 
is  to  cast  no  reflection  on  their  memory.  It 
does,  however,  tend  to  show  that  they  were 
subject  to  human  limitations,  and  that  their 
wisdom  and  foresight  were  chiefly  employed  in 
dealing  directly  and  courageously  with  the  con- 
ditions with  which  they  were  actually  con- 
fronted. 

By  the  **  Articles  of  Confederation  and  Per- 
petual Union, '^  as  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion were  officially  styled,  each  State  retained 
**  its  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence, 
and  every  power,  jurisdiction  and  right  ''  not 
**  expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled.''  The  bond  of  connec- 
tion was  described  as  a  *  *  firm  league  of  friend- 
ship,'' for  common  defense,  the  security  of 
liberties,  and  mutual  and  general  welfare.  The 
Congress  was  composed  of  not  less  than  two 
nor  more  than  seven  delegates  from  each  State, 
annually  appointed  in  such  manner  as  the 
legislature  should  direct;  but  these  delegates 
were  paid  by  the  States  and  were  subject  to 
recall,  and  each  State  had  but  one  vote  in  the 
Congress. 


30  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

The  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in 
the  several  States  were  assured  to  the  free  in- 
habitants of  each  State ;  privileges  of  interstate 
trade  and  intercourse  were  likewise  accorded; 
the  delivery-up  of  fugitives  from  justice  was 
provided  for;  and  it  was  stipulated  that  full 
faith  and  credit  should  be  given  in  each  State 
to  the  records,  acts  and  judicial  proceedings  of 
the  several  States.  On  the  other  hand,  al- 
though the  several  States  were  forbidden  to 
send  or  to  receive  embassies  or  to  enter  into  any 
conference,  agreement,  alliance  or  treaty  with 
any  foreign  power,  without  the  consent  of  Con- 
gress, or  to  lay  any  imposts  or  duties  incon- 
sistent with  the  treaties  already  proposed  to 
France  and  Spain,  yet  the  regulation  of  com- 
merce and  the  laying  of  imposts  and  duties 
remained  in  other  respects  with  the  several 
States.  It  was  in  fact  expressly  provided  that 
no  treaty  of  commerce  should  be  made  where- 
by the  legislatures  of  the  respective  States 
should  be  restrained  from  imposing  such  im- 
posts and  duties  on  foreigners  as  their  own 
people  were  subject  to,  or  from  prohibiting  the 
exportation  or  importation  of  any  species  of 
goods  or  commodities  whatsoever. 

There  was  granted  to  the  Congress  the  ex- 


FEDEEALISM  31 

elusive  power,  subject  to  certain  exceptions,  to 
declare  war  and  make  peace,  but,  although  the 
common  expenses,  including  those  of  war,  were 
to  be  defrayed  out  of  a  common  fund  supplied 
by  the  several  States  in  certain  proportions,  the 
laying  and  collection  of  the  taxes  for  the  paying 
of  such  proportions  were  left  altogether  to  the 
several  States.  The  Congress  was  invested 
with  exclusive  power  to  regulate  the  alloy  and 
value  of  metallic  money ;  but  the  power  to  coin 
money  was  shared  with  the  States,  which  also 
retained  power  to  appoint  regimental  officers 
in  the  United  States  army. 

The  executive  power,  such  as  it  was,  was 
lodged  in  the  Congress,  or,  during  its  recess,  in 
**A  Committee  of  the  States,"  consisting  of 
one  delegate  designated  by  Congress  from  each 
State.  Judicial  power  there  was  none,  except 
that  Congress  had  power  to  appoint  courts  for 
the  trial  of  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on 
the  high  seas  and  for  the  determination  of  ap- 
peals in  cases  of  capture.  Provision  was  made 
for  the  creation  of  special  tribunals  for  the 
determination  of  disputes  and  differences  be- 
tween the  States  concerning  boundaries,  juris- 
diction and  other  matters,  but  from  the  de- 
cisions of  such  tribunals.  Congress  itself  was 
to  be  *'  the  last  resort  on  appeal." 


32  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Finally,  in  order  that  the  powers  of  the  Con- 
federation might  not  be  intentionally  or  inad- 
vertently expanded,  it  was  expressJy  provided 
that  the  Congress  should  **  never  engage  in  a 
war,  nor  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  in 
time  of  peace,  nor  enter  into  any  treaties  or  al- 
liances, nor  coin  money,  nor  regulate  the  value 
thereof,  nor  ascertain  the  sums  and  expenses 
necessary  for  the  defense  and  welfare  of  the 
United  States,  or  any  of  them,  nor  emit  bills, 
nor  borrow  money  on  the  credit  of  the  United 
States,  nor  appropriate  money,  nor  agree  upon 
the  number  of  vessels  of  war  to  be  built  or  pur- 
chased, or  the  number  of  land  or  sea  forces 
to  be  raised,  nor  appoint  a  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  army  or  navy,^'  unless  with  the 
assent  of  nine  of  the  thirteen  States. 

To  the  Articles  of  Confederation  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  presents  a  funda- 
mental and  almost  a  complete  antithesis. 

In  the  first  place,  the  foundations  of  national 
legislative  power  under  the  Constitution  were 
laid  broad  and  deep.  It  is  true  that  the  Senate, 
which  is  composed  of  two  Senators  from  each 
State,  chosen  by  the  legislature  thereof,  rep- 
resents a  compromise.  It  reflected  the  old  con- 
ception of  the  equality  of   States,  on  which 


FEDEBALISM  33 

the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  "based. 
But  the  compromise  was  necessary  in  order  to 
obtain  the  assent  of  the  several  States  to  the 
union;  and  the  principle  of  State  equality  was 
discarded  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives, 
whose  members  were  to  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States,  according  to  population. 
The  fundamental  point,  however,  to  be  noted, 
is  that  the  legislative  power  no  longer  oper- 
ates upon  the  States,  but  operates  directly  upon 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  The  Senators 
and  Representatives  were  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  the  United 
States  was  to  raise  its  own  revenues. 

The  legislative  power,  as  defined  in  the  Con- 
stitution, was  ample  for  national  purposes. 
The  Congress  was  invested  with  power  to  lay 
and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises; 
to  pay  the  debts,  and  provide  for  the  common 
defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  United 
States,  subject  only  to  the  proviso  that  all  debts, 
imposts,  and  excises  should  be  uniform  through- 
out the  United  States.  Congress  was  further 
invested  with  power  to  borrow  money  on  the 
credit  of  the  United  States;  to  regulate  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  sev- 
eral States,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes ;  to  estab- 
3 


24  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

lisli  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  uni- 
form laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcies;  to 
coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of 
foreign  coin,  and  to  fix  the  standard  of  weights 
and  measures;  to  provide  for  the  punishment 
of  counterfeiting  United  States  securities  and 
coin ;  to  establish  Post-Offices  and  Post-Roads ; 
to  grant  copyrights  and  patents;  to  constitute 
tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court;  to 
define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies  com- 
mitted on  the  high  seas,  and  offenses  against 
the  law  of  nations;  to  declare  war,  grant  let- 
ters of  marque  and  reprisal,  and  make  rules 
concerning  captures  on  land  and  water ;  to  raise 
and  support  armies;  to  provide  and  maintain 
a  navy;  to  make  rules  for  the  government  and 
regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces ;  to  pro- 
vide for  calling  out  the  militia  to  execute  the 
laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and 
repel  invasions;  to  provide  for  organizing, 
arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  and  for 
governing  such  part  of  them  as  might  be  em- 
ployed in  the  service  of  the  United  States ;  to 
exercise  exclusive  legislation  over  the  seat  of 
government,  and  over  all  places  acquired  for 
the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock- 
yards,    and     other    needful     buildings;     and 


FEDEBALISM  35 

finally,  but  not  of  least  importance,  **  to  make 
all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for 
carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers, 
and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitu- 
tion in  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof."  The 
only  express  limitations  placed  upon  the  power 
of  Congress  were  the  inhibitions  to  prohibit 
the  slave  trade  prior  to  1808;  to  suspend  the 
privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  except 
when,  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion,  the  pub- 
lic safety  might  require  it ;  to  pass  bills  of  at- 
tainder, or  ex  post  facto  laws ;  to  lay  capitation 
or  other  direct  taxes,  except  in  proportion  to 
population;  to  lay  taxes  or  duties  on  articles 
exported  from  any  State;  to  give  a  preference 
by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue  to 
the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another ;  to 
require  vessels,  bound  to  or  from  one  State,  to 
enter,  clear  or  pay  duties  in  another;  or  to 
grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  expressly  provided 
that  no  State  should  enter  into  any  treaty,  alli- 
ance, or  confederation ;  grant  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal;  coin  money;  emit  bills  of  credit; 
make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  legal 
tender ;  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto 


36  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

law  or  law  impairing  the  obligations  of  con- 
tracts; or  grant  any  title  of  nobility.  It  was 
further  provided  that  no  State  should,  without 
the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  imposts  or 
duties  on  imports  or  exports,  except  what  might 
be  absolutely  necessary  for  executing  its  in- 
spection laws ;  that  the  net  proceeds  of  all  duties 
and  imposts,  laid  by  any  State  on  imports  or 
exports,  should  be  for  the  use  of  the  United 
States  Treasury ;  and  that  all  such  laws  should 
be  subject  to  the  revision  and  control  of  the 
Congress.  The  States  were  also  forbidden, 
without  the  consent  of  Congress,  to  lay  any  duty 
of  tonnage,  keep  troops  or  ships  of  war  in 
time  of  peace,  enter  into  any  agreement  or 
compact  with  another  State  or  with  a  foreign 
power,  or  to  engage  in  war,  unless  actually 
invaded  or  in  such  imminent  danger  as  would 
not  admit  of  delay. 

Not  less  remarkable  is  the  executive  power 
vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  President  of 
the  United  States;  for,  owing  to  their  repro- 
bation of  the  absolute  power  then  exercised  by 
the  monarchs  of  Europe,  and  their  special  ab- 
horrence of  the  arbitrary  course  of  George  the 
III  of  England,  the  American  people  felt  a 
peculiar     jealousy     of     executive     authority. 


FEDEBALISM  ?, 


oi 


Nevertheless,  the  powers  vested  in  the  Presi- 
dent were,  like  those  vested  in  Congress,  ample 
for  national  purposes.  He  was  made  com- 
mander-in-chief of  the  army  and  navy  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several 
States  when  called  into  the  actual  service  of  the 
United  States.  He  was  empowered  to  require 
the  opinions,  in  writing,  of  the  heads  of  execu- 
tive departments,  and  to  grant  reprieves  and 
pardons  for  offenses  against  the  United  States, 
except  in  cases  of  impeachment.  The  conduct 
of  foreign  intercourse  was  placed  in  his  hands. 
He  was  empowered,  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make  treaties,  with  the 
concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  pres- 
ent; to  nominate  and,  by  and  with  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  appoint  ambassa- 
dors, other  public  ministers  and  consuls,  and  to 
receive  ambassadors  and  other  public  ministers. 
The  appointment  of  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  of  all  other  officers  of  the  United 
States,  was  confided  to  him,  subject  to  the  ad- 
vice and  consent  of  the  Senate.  He  was  also 
to  give  to  Congress  information  of  the  state 
of  the  Union,  and  to  recommend  to  their  con- 
sideration such  measures  as  he  should  judge 
necessary    and    expedient;    to    convene    both 


38  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Houses,  or  either  of  them,  on  extraordinary  oc- 
casions, and,  in  case  they  could  not  agree  as  to 
the  time  of  adjournment,  to  adjourn  them  to 
such  time  as  he  should  think. 

The  exercise  of  judicial  power,  which  was  so 
signally  lacking  under  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation, was  also  amply  provided  for.  Such 
power  was  vested  ^ '  in  one  Supreme  Court,  and 
in  such  inferior  courts  as  the  Congress  may 
from  time  to  time  ordain  and  establish.''  The 
judges  of  such  courts  were  to  hold  office  during 
good  behavior,  and  to  receive  for  their  services 
a  compensation  which  should  not  be  diminished 
during  their  continuance  in  office.  The  judicial 
power  thus  vested  was  declared  to  extend  **  to 
all  cases,  in  law  and  equity,  arising  under  this 
Constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under 
their  authority;  to  all  cases  effecting  ambassa- 
dors, other  public  ministers  and  consuls ;  to  all 
cases  of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction; 
to  controversies  to  which  the  United  States 
shall  be  a  party;  to  controversies  between  two 
or  more  States,  between  a  State  and  citizens  of 
another  State,  between  citizens  of  different 
States,  between  citizens  of  the  same  State  claim- 
ing lands  under  grants  of  different  States,  and 


FEDEEALISM  39 

between  a  State,  or  the  citizens  thereof,  and 
foreign  states,  citizens  or  subjects.'' 

In  addition  to  the  powers  thus  given,  pro- 
vision was  made  to  assure  the  recognition  in 
each  State  of  the  public  acts,  records  and  judi- 
cial proceedings  of  other  States,  and  the  citizens 
of  each  State  were  guaranteed  all  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States. 
The  delivery-up  of  fugitives  from  justice 
and  the  recovery  of  slaves,  as  between  the 
several  States,  were  assured.  Furthermore, 
Congress  was  empowered  *^  to  dispose  of  and 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect- 
ing the  territory  or  other  property  belonging 
to  the  United  States;"  and  it  was  provided 
that  the  United  States  should  *  ^  guarantee  ' '  to 
every  State  ^*  a  Eepublican  form  of  govern- 
ment,'' and  **  protect  each  of  them  against 
invasion,"  and,  **  on  application  of  the  legis- 
lature, or  of  the  executive  (when  the  legis- 
lature cannot  be  convened),  against  domestic 
violence. ' ' 

Finally,  and  most  importantly,  it  was  de- 
clared that  ^ '  this  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  which  shall  be  made  in  pur- 
suance thereof ;  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which 
shall   be   made,    under   the   authority   of   the 


40  AMEBIC  AN  DEVELOPMENT 

United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  and  the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be 
bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  constitution  or 
laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing." 

The  form  of  this  clause,  which  was  obviously 
designed  to  secure  the  subordination  of  State 
authority  in  matters  of  federal  cognizance,  was 
directly  due  to  the  difficulty,  to  which  we  have 
heretofore  adverted,  in  securing  the  perform- 
ance of  the  stipulations  of  the  IVth  Article  of 
the  Treaty  of  Peace  with  Great  Britain,  con- 
cerning the  recovery  of  debts.  The  specifica- 
tion of  ^*  treaties  made,"  as  well  as  of  those 
which  should  be  made,  was  intended  unequi- 
vocally to  embrace  the  Treaty  of  Peace.  Nor 
did  the  clause  provide  for  the  nullification  of 
only  inconsistent  State  laws ;  it  equally  included 
the  inconsistent  provisions  of  State  constitu- 
tions. **  Anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws 
of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding," 
is  the  phrase  employed;  the  subordination  of 
State  authority  to  national  authority,  within 
the  sphere  of  national  action,  was  made 
complete. 

Immediately  after  the  Constitution  was  put 
into  operation,  ten  Amendments  were  adopted. 


FEDEBALISM  41 

They  were  in  the  nature  of  a  bill  of  rights,  and 
were  designed  to  remove  objections  that  had 
been  excited  by  the  broad  grants  of  federal 
power.  By  the  last  of  these  Amendments,  it 
was  declared  that  powers  not  delegated  by  the 
Constitution  to  the  United  States,  nor  pro- 
hibited by  it  to  the  States,  were  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively,  or  to  the  people.  By  an 
eleventh  Amendment,  soon  afterwards  ratified, 
suits  against  individual  States  by  citizens  of 
other  States  or  of  foreign  countries  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  grant  of  judicial  power. 

The  American  people,  having  determined 
upon  the  formation  of  a  national  government, 
proceeded  directly  to  the  accomplishment  of 
that  object,  establishing,  on  the  basis  of  a  com- 
mon citizenship,  a  government  which,  with  its 
own  executive,  its  own  legislature,  its  own 
judiciary,  and  its  own  military  and  naval  forces, 
operated  directly  upon  the  people  as  individ- 
uals, levied  and  collected  its  own  taxes,  adopted 
and  applied  its  own  legislation,  pronounced  and 
enforced  its  own  judgments,  and  determined  for 
itself  questions  of  war  and  of  peace.  In  con- 
templating these  results,  it  is  instructive  to 
compare  the  epoch-making  work  of  the  Ameri- 
can constitution  makers  with  the  great  examples 


42  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

of  federal  union  in  Europe — Switzerland  and 
Germany — although  in  these  cases  the  develop- 
ment of  federal  institutions  not  only  came  about 
gradually  but  involved  the  progressive  concilia- 
tion of  divergent  local  interests  deeply  rooted 
in  ancient  political  institutions  and  habits  of 
thought. 

Even  today  citizenship  in  Switzerland  is  of 
cantonal  rather  than  of  national  origin,  while 
the  federal  executive  power  is  lodged  in  a  body 
of  seven  persons  called  the  Federal  Council. 
The  members  of  this  body  are  elected  by  the 
federal  legislature  for  terms  of  three  years,  and 
are  usually  re-elected  for  successive  terms. 
They  act  as  heads  of  departments,  and  are  in 
reality  hard- worked  officials,  who,  although  they 
draw  modest  salaries,  spend  most  of  their 
time  at  their  desks.  Their  presiding  officer  or 
chairman  is  designated  by  the  federal  legisla- 
ture from  year  to  year.  Officially  styled  the 
President  of  the  Confederation,  and  commonly 
known  abroad  as  the  President  of  Switzerland, 
he  discharges  ceremonial  functions  which  or- 
dinarily belong  to  a.  chief  executive,  but  his 
essential  powers  are  only  those  of  a  member  of 
the  council.  The  legislature  consists  of  a 
Federal  Assembly,  composed  of  a  Council  of 


FEDEBALISM  43 

States,  in  which  the  cantons  are  equally  rep- 
resented, and  a  National  Council,  which  is  the 
popular  and  more  numerous  and  has  proved  to 
be  the  more  important  chamber.  A  Federal 
Supreme  Court  of  limited  jurisdiction,  com- 
posed of  nineteen  members  elected  by  the 
Federal  Assembly  for  six  years,  sits  at  Lau- 
sanne, in  the  Palace  of  Justice  erected  there  for 
its  use.  In  spite  of  the  smallness  of  the  coun- 
try, the  tendency  towards  centralization  in 
Switzerland  has  on  the  whole  developed  slowly. 
In  recent  years,  however,  the  centralizing  pace 
has  been  greatly  accelerated,  as  the  result  of 
the  buildings  of  railroads  (substantially  all  of 
which  the  federal  government  owns  and  oper- 
ates), the  increase  of  intercantonal  intercourse, 
and  the  incidental  growth  of  a  desire  for  uni- 
formity of  law.  The  limited  grants  of  legisla- 
tive power  formerly  made  to  the  federal  gov- 
ernment were  extended  by  constitutional 
amendment  in  1898  so  as  to  embrace  both  civil 
and  criminal  law;  and  in  December,  1907,  the 
Federal  Assembly,  after  mature  deliberation, 
adopted  without  a  dissenting  voice  a  national 
civil  code,  which  was  to  come  into  force  on 
January  1,  1912.  In  Switzerland  as  in  the 
United  States  commerce  is  the  great  and  in- 


44  AjdEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

exorable  factor  in  the  extension  of  national 
activities  in  time  of  peace. 

In  Germany,  by  the  Constitution  of  1871,  the 
laws  of  the  Empire  are  within  their  sphere  su- 
preme. There  is  one  citizenship  for  all  Ger- 
many, and  all  Germans  in  foreign  countries 
have  equal  claims  upon  the  protection  of  the 
Empire.  The  supervision  of  the  Empire  and 
its  legislation  comprehend  the  right  of  citizen- 
ship ;  the  issuing  and  examination  of  passports ; 
the  surveillance  of  aliens ;  colonization  and  emi- 
gration ;  customs  duties  and  commerce ;  coinage, 
and  the  emission  of  paper  money;  foreign  trade 
and  navigation,  and  consular  representation 
abroad ;  and  the  imperial  army  and  navy.  The 
Emperor  represents  the  Empire  among  na- 
tions; enters  into  alliances  and  other  conven- 
tions with  foreign  countries;  sends  and  re- 
ceives ambassadors ;  and  declares  war  and  con- 
cludes peace  in  the  name  of  the  Empire,  sub- 
ject to  the  proviso  that,  for  a  declaration  of 
war,  the  consent  of  the  federal  council  is  re- 
quired, except  in  case  of  **  an  attack  upon  the 
territory  of  the  confederation  or  its  coasts.'^ 
The  relations  of  the  several  States  to  the  Em- 
pire and  to  each  other  are  not,  however,  wholly 
regulated  by  the  written  Constitution.     The 


FEDEBALISM  45 

several  States  preserve  the  right  of  legation; 
as  late  as  1895  the  government  of  Baden  de- 
clined to  receive  representations  from  the 
United  States  on  a  matter  which  was  consid- 
ered to  be  of  peculiarly  internal  concern  ex- 
cept through  George  Bancroft,  who,  although 
he  had  then  been  gathered  to  his  fathers,  was 
still  borne  on  the  records  of  Baden  as  Ameri- 
can minister  to  that  kingdom.  They  also  grant 
exequaturs  to  foreign  consuls  within  their  terri- 
tories, although  all  German  consuls  are  sent  out 
by  the  Empire.  They  may  enter  into  conven- 
tions with  foreign  powers  concerning  matters 
not  within  the  competence  of  the  Empire  or  of 
the  Emperor,  and  within  the  limits  fixed  by 
the  laws  of  the  Empire;  even  today  the  rela- 
tions of  the  United  States  with  some  of  the 
German  States  in  matters  of  naturalization  and 
extradition  are  regulated  by  treaties  made  with 
those  States  before  the  formation  of  the  Em- 
pire. They  may  also  conclude  concordats  with 
the  Holy  See.  The  federal  union  in  Germany  is 
indeed  a  complex  structure;  but,  although  it 
may  be  difficult  to  harmonize  it  with  abstract 
notions  of  government.  Prince  Bismarck  was 
wont  to  console  himself  with  the  reflection  that 
it  worked  well.    But  in  Germany,  just  as  in 


46  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

the  United  States  and  in  Switzerland,  the 
growth  of  commerce,  interstate  as  well  as  for- 
eign, accelerates  the  tendency  towards  the  aug- 
mentation of  national  control  and  the  centrali- 
zation of  power. 


LECTUEE  II 

Democracy 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  marks  the 
high  tide  of  early  federalism.  This  is  far  from 
saying  that  the  spirit  of  nationality  spent  itself 
in  the  framing  of  that  instrument.  But  the 
American  people  were  jealous  of  authority. 
This  attitude  towards  government  was  the 
necessary  result  of  their  situation  and  ante- 
cedents. Living  in  a  new  country  of  vast  ex- 
tent, surrounded  on  all  sides  by  forces  that 
were  antagonistic  if  not  hostile,  with  savage 
men  to  encounter  and  a  wilderness  to  subdue, 
they  had  learned  to  rely  upon  their  personal 
strength  and  resources.  Out  of  these  condi- 
tions there  developed  an  intense  individualism. 
Accustomed  to  look  to  themselves  rather  than 
to  government  for  their  protection,  they  were 
unused  to  the  pressure  of  administrative  con- 
trol and  regarded  with  jealousy,  not  unmixed 
with  distrust,  the  exercise  of  a  strong  gov- 
ernmental authority. 

The  same  conditions  that  made  the  people  in- 
dividualistic  also  rendered  them  democratic. 

47 


i^ 


48  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

The  colonial  charters  naturally  reflected  the 
aristocratic  character  of  the  government  from 
which  they  emanated.  But  aristocracy  was 
unsuited  to  the  wilderness.  Interdependence 
and  the  need  of  self-help  made  men  feel  that 
they  were  placed  on  an  equal  footing.  In  such 
circumstances  it  was  difficult  to  preserve  dis- 
tinctions of  rank  or  to  secure  respect  for  power 
which  was  not  based  upon  the  merits  of  the 
individual.  It  was  merely  the  play  of  natural 
forces  as  they  existed  in  America  that  caused 
aristocracy  to  decline  and  democracy  to  grow. 
The  Eevolution  was  itself  a  democratic  move- 
ment, to  which,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
eminent  patriots  and  the  veracious  disclosures 
of  later  and  perhaps  more  candid  historians, 
a  large  proportion  of  '^  influential  characters," 
of  the  propertied,  office-holding  and  profes- 
sional classes,  were  from  first  to  last  opposed. 
As  has  been  said,  the  American  people  de- 
veloped an  intense  individualism.  Democracy 
is  not  necessarily  individualistic ;  it  may  on  the 
contrary  be  highly  socialistic;  but  in  the  early 
days  of  the  American.  Union  the  grounds  for 
the  growth  of  socialistic  principles  did  not 
exist.  Socialism  begins  when  human  wants 
cannot  be  gratified  without  trenching  upon  the 


DEMOCBACY  49 

position  of  those  who  have  been  forehanded  in 
gaining  control  of  the  country's  material  re- 
sources. In  America  the  entire  continent 
stretched  out  before  the  adventurous  settler; 
it  was  his  almost  for  the  asking  if  he  had  the 
strength,  the  fortitude  and  the  skill  to  subdue 
and  defend  it.  The  American  democracy  was 
therefore  individualistic,  and  it  may  be  said 
that  individualism  grew  as  democracy  grew. 
Proceeding  from  the  same  conditions,  they 
were  not  antagonistic  but  progressed  and  pros- 
pered together. 

The  democratic  spirit,  inevitably  produced 
by  the  conditions  in  which  the  American  people 
lived,  was  encouraged,  intensified  and  con- 
firmed by  the  political  philosophy  which  they 
espoused  on  their  advent  into  the  family  of 
nations.  The  idea  of  democracy,  although  it 
flourished  in  the  rich  but  untilled  soil  of  the 
American  continent,  was  not  born  there.  Long 
before  the  American  Eevolution  it  had  found 
expression  in  the  writings  of  political  philo- 
sophers in  Europe  who  protested  against  gov- 
ernmental and  ecclesiastical  oppressions.  The 
labors  and  writings  of  these  philosophers 
specially  distinguished  the  eighteenth  century 
— the  most  fruitful  period  in  the  history  of  the 
4 


50  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

world  in  the  inculcation  and  spread  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  liberty.  The  idea  of  democracy  was 
systematized  and  expounded  in  the  doctrine  of 
natural  rights. 

According  to  this  doctrine  the  true  principles 
of  society  and  of  government  were  to  be  traced 
back  to  a  state  of  nature.  The  state  of  nature 
was  a  state  of  innocence — a  sort  of  garden  of 
Eden — in  which  evil  was  unknown.  Evil  was 
introduced  by  man's  misdeeds;  and  in  order  to 
protect  the  innocent  against  the  guilty  it  was 
found  to  be  necessary  to  yield  up  some  of  the 
rights  which  nature  gave  in  order  to  insure  the 
preservation  of  the  rest.  Thus  society  was  to 
be  regarded  as  a  sort  of  contract  or  compact, 
while  government  was  looked  upon  as  a  benefi- 
cence only  so  far  as  it  strictly  confined  its  acti- 
vities to  the  repression  of  what  was  wrong  and 
the  protection  of  the  innocent  and  helpless 
against  the  aggressions  and  rapacity  of  the 
malevolent  strong.  When  government  trans- 
cended these  bounds,  it  became  an  evil  and  its 
activities  were  to  be  regarded  as  purely  tyran- 
nical. Society  was  to  be  congratulated  when 
it  had  as  little  government  as  possible,  and, 
according  to  the  current  phrase,  that  govern- 
ment was  best  which  governed  least. 


DEMOCRACY  51 

Our  later  political  philosophers  have  been  in- 
clined to  deride  this  doctrine;  they  deny  that 
any  such  thing  as  a  state  of  nature,  in  the 
sense  in  which  their  predecessors  used  that 
phrase,  ever  existed.  They  consider  the  theory 
altogether  artificial.  Our  modern  critics  how- 
ever lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  to  a  great  ex- 
tent systems  of  political  philosophy  are  but  the 
expression — and  often  the  belated  expression — 
of  social  evolution,  and  that  in  political  philo- 
sophy as  in  political  economy  there  is  very  little 
that  can  be  regarded  as  axiomatic  or  as  per- 
manently true.  Principles  will  be  regarded  as 
correct  or  incorrect  in  proportion  as  they  re- 
flect existing  conditions;  and  until  we  can  af- 
firm that  the  final  stage  of  political  and  so- 
cial evolution  has  been  reached  and  that  no  new 
developments  can  be  made,  we  shall  have  no 
assurance  that  the  political  and  social  theories 
of  today  will  not  be  discarded  tomorrow,  or 
that  the  political  and  social  principles  dis- 
carded today  will  not  be  revived  and  reapplied 
in  the  next  generation.  Whether  regarded  as 
true  or  as  false,  the  doctrine  of  natural  rights 
is  on  one  ground  alone  entitled  to  our  deferen- 
tial consideration ;  it  was  the  fundamental  tenet 
of  those  who  in  the  eighteenth  century  main- 


52  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

tained  the  cause  of  political  and  intellectual 
emancipation,  and  as  such  it  furnished  to  the 
advocates  of  liberty  throughout  the  world  a 
philosophy  and  a  justification. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  per- 
meated with  this  philosophy  and  rested  upon 
it  for  its  justification.  In  its  appeal  to  the 
world  it  invoked  the  laws  of  nature  as  well  as 
the  laws  of  nature  ^s  God,  and  upon  this  foun- 
dation, the  security  of  which  was  not  doubted, 
it  proclaimed  these  truths  to  be  self-evident: 
That  all  men  are  created  equal;  that  they  are 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalien- 
able rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness;  that  to  secure  these 
rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men, 
deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed;  that  whenever  any  form  of  gov- 
ernment becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it 
is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abolish 
it  and  to  institute  new  government,  laying  its 
foundation  on  such  principles  and  organizing 
its  powers  in  such  form  as  to  them  shall  seem 
most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happi- 
ness. Prudence  indeed  might  dictate,  said  the 
Declaration,  that  governments  long  established 
should  not  be  changed  for  light  and  transient 


DEMOCBACT  53 

causes;  and  experience  had  shown  that  man- 
kind were  more  disposed  to  suffer,  while  evils 
were  endurable,  than  to  right  themselves  by 
abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they  were  ac- 
customed ;  but  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and 
usurpations,  pursuing  invariably  the  same  ob- 
ject, evinced  a  design  to  reduce  the  people  to 
an  absolute  despotism,  it  was  their  right  and 
their  duty  to  throw  off  the  usurping  govern- 
ment and  to  provide  new  guards  for  their  future 
security.  Such,  it  was  affirmed,  had  been  the 
patient  sufferance  of  the  colonies,  and  such 
was  the  necessity  which  constrained  them  to 
alter  their  former  systems  of  government.  To 
show  that  the  history  of  the  reigning  king  of 
Great  Britain  was  a  history  of  **  repeated  in- 
juries and  usurpation,"  all  having  the  direct 
object  of  establishing  an  **  absolute  tyranny  '' 
over  the  States,  the  facts  were  recited  to  a 
*  *  candid  world. ' ' 

It  has  sometimes  been  the  fashion  to  scoff 
at  this  Declaration  of  Independence  as  a  string 
of  phrases  without  serious  meaning  and  with- 
out a  direct  and  practical  application  to  human 
affairs.  But  those  who  assume  this  attitude 
betray  a  mental  bias  or  confess  themselves  un- 
familiar with  or  incapable  of  understanding  the 


54  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

course  of  American  history.  The  Fathers  of 
the  Country  have  been  charged  with  incon- 
sistency in  uttering  sentiments  of  natural  right 
while  tolerating  the  system  of  slavery.  To  this 
charge  we  may  answer,  first,  that  they  were  gen- 
erally opposed  to  the  continuance  of  the  system 
of  slavery  and  looked  forward  to  its  extinction ; 
and  secondly,  that  they  regarded  the  African 
race  as  inferior  to  their  own,  and  therefore  as 
not  coming  primarily  within  the  scope  of  a 
declaration  of  natural  rights,  when  applied  to 
political  organization.  But,  however  this  may 
be,  we  are  dealing  here  with  what  I  have  called 
causative  facts,  and  the  great  causative  fact  is 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  the 
charter  of  the  American  Revolution ;  that  until 
the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  it  was  the  main  charter  of  the  American 
Union ;  and  that  it  has  continued  to  the  present 
day  to  animate  and  inspire  the  great  Ameri- 
can democracy  in  preserving  their  nationality 
and  their  liberties. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  while 
it  furnished  provisions  for  assuring  the  liber- 
ties of  the  people  as  well  as  for  establishing  a 
strong  national  government,  was  not  regarded 
by  its  framers  as  founding  a  democratic  gov- 


DEMOCBACT  55 

ermnent.  At  the  time  when  it  was  formulated 
and  proclaimed  the  dominant  idea  in  the  public 
mind  was  that  of  federalism;  the  object  sought 
was  union,  and  a  government  by  which  union 
might  be  obtained  and  rendered  efficient  for 
the  purposes  immediately  to  be  subserved. 
One  of  the  arguments  made  in  opposition  to  the 
ratification  of  the  Constitution  was  that  it 
would  break  down  on  account  of  the  extent  of 
the  territory  to  which  it  was  to  apply.  The 
advocates  of  ratification,  among  whom  we  may 
particularly  mention  Madison,  met  this  argu- 
ment by  saying  that  it  was  based  upon  the 
fallacy  of  confounding  a  republic  with  a  demo- 
cracy. **  In  a  democracy  ^\  said  Madison, 
'*  the  people  exercise  the  government  in  per- 
son; in  a  republic,  they  assemble  and  admin- 
ister it  by  their  representatives  and  agents;  a 
democracy  consequently  would  be  confined  to  a 
small  spot,  a  republic  might  be  extended  over  a 
large  region  ".  The  framers  of  the  Constitu- 
tion had  therefore  devised  a  republican  form 
of  government. 

But,  no  matter  whether  the  government  was 
technically  called  republican  or  democratic, 
there  was  no  doubt  that  the  popular  tide  was 
running  strongly  in  the  direction  of  democracy. 


56  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

and,  as  has  been  remarked,  democracy  meant 
individualism,  individualism  meant  political 
particularism,  and  in  political  particularism 
was  found  the  assurance  not  only  that  the 
rights  of  the  States  would  be  protected  against 
any  overweening  assumption  of  national  power 
but  also  that  those  who  administered  the  na- 
tional government  would  not  generally  be  found 
to  be  disposed  to  press  its  powers  beyond 
proper  limits. 

This  tenderness  towards  States'  rights,  or 
sympathy  with  local  feeling,  whichever  we  may 
please  to  call  it,  was  clearly  shown  in  the  Judi- 
ciary Act  of  1789,  by  which  the  courts  of  the 
United  States  were  established  and  their  juris- 
diction defined.  As  has  heretofore  been 
pointed  out,  the  Congress  was  empowered  by 
the  Constitution  to  make  all  laws  which  should 
be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  exe- 
cution the  enumerated  powers  vested  by  the 
Constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United 
States  or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof. 
By  the  Constitution  the  judicial  power  of  the 
United  States  was  vested  in  one  Supreme 
Court  and  in  such  inferior  courts  as  the  Con- 
gress might  from  time  to  time  ordain  and  es- 
tablish.    The    mode    in    which   the    Supreme 


demochact  57 

Court  should  be  constituted  was  not  prescribed, 
and  for  the  most  part  its  jurisdiction  was  not 
defined ;  and  no  indication  whatever  was  given 
as  to  the  form  in  which  the  inferior  courts 
should  be  created  or  as  to  the  jurisdiction  with 
which  they  should  respectively  be  endowed. 
For  the  execution  of  the  powers  thus  vested 
in  the  government  of  the  United  States,  Con- 
gress passed  the  act  of  September  24,  1789,  to 
**  establish  the  judicial  courts  of  the  United 
States.''  In  erecting  the  courts  and  prescrib- 
ing their  jurisdiction  Congress,  it  may  be  as- 
sumed, possessed  the  power,  which  has  since 
been  freely  exercised,  to  prescribe  their  rules 
of  decision.  Uniformity  of  law  in  matters  of 
interstate  or  international  concern  is  an  object 
universally  desired  and  for  the  attainment  of 
which  men  are  constantly  working.  But,  in 
order  that  the  Constitution  might  sit  lightly  on 
the  people,  and  that  they  might  not  be  alarmed 
by  a  sudden  exercise  of  national  power,  it  was 
provided  by  the  34th  section  of  the  Judiciary 
Act  that  **  the  laws  of  the  several  States,  ex- 
cept where  the  Constitution,  treaties  or  statutes 
of  the  United  States  shall  otherwise  require  or 
provide,  shall  be  regarded  as  rules  of  decision 
in  trials  at  common  law  in  the  courts  of  the 
United  States  in  cases  where  they  apply  ". 


58  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

From  this  legislation  it  has  been  inferred  and 
affirmed  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  com- 
mon law  of  the  United  States,  and  that  when 
the  federal  courts  came  to  deal  with  common- 
law  questions  they  necessarily  had  to  resort  to 
the  common  law  as  they  found  it  in  the  par- 
ticular States  in  which  they  sat.  Beginning 
with  the  case  of  Swift  v.  Tyson/  the  federal 
courts  have,  in  spite  of  this  assumption,  worked 
out  to  a  certain  extent  what  they  have  declared 
to  be  a  federal  common  law  in  matters  of  in- 
terstate concern;  but  their  action  in  so  doing 
has  not  ceased  to  be  a  subject  of  legal  con- 
troversy. It  may,  however,  be  said  that  those 
who  totally  deny  the  possession  by  the  United 
States  of  any  common  law  would  confer  a  favor 
upon  us  if  they  would  indicate  from  what  other 
source  citizenship  of  the  United  States  by  birth 
was,  prior  to  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  uni- 
versally derived.  Citizenship  by  naturalization 
was  a  constitutional  status,  for  Congress  was 
expressly  authorized  to  prescribe  a  uniform 
rule  of  naturalization;  but,  prior  to  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment,  which  declared  ^*  all  per- 
sons born  ...  in  the  United  States,  and  subject 
to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,''  to  be  '^  citizens 

1 16  Peters,  1. 


DEMOCRACY  59 

of  the  United  States,"  there  was  no  constitu- 
tional definition  of  national  citizenship  by- 
birth.  Mr.  Justice  Curtis,  in  his  dissenting 
opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  argued  that  the 
Constitution  adopted  as  native  American  citi- 
zens such  persons  as  were  by  birth  *  *  citizens  ' ' 
of  the  several  States ;  but  this  theory  failed  to 
account  for  the  fact  that  persons  born  on  terri- 
tory within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  but  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any 
State,  were  also  regarded  as  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  We  seem  indeed  to  be  driven  to 
accept  as  correct  the  declaration  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  in  1898,^  that  ''  beyond  doubt  " 
birth  *^  within  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States  ''  created,  by  virtue  of  the  rule  cf  the 
common  law  operating  thereunder,  national 
citizenship. 

In  the  case  of  the  United  States  v.  Hudson 
and  Goodwin,^  in  1812,  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  under  the  influence  of  par- 
ticularistic tendencies,  held  that  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  had  no  common-law  jurisdic- 
tion in  cases  of  crime.  This  case  related  to  an 
indictment  for  a  libel  on  the  President   and 

1  United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Ark,  169  U.  S.  649,  675. 

2  7  Cranch,  32. 


60  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Congress  of  the  United  States,  published  in  a 
Connecticut  newspaper,  charging  them  with 
having  in  secret  voted  two  million  dollars  as 
a  present  to  Bonaparte  for  leave  to  make  a 
treaty  with  Spain.  The  case  was  certified  from 
the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
district  of  Connecticut  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  on  a  division  of  opinion  be- 
tween the  judges  upon  the  question  whether  the 
court  had  common-law  jurisdiction  in  cases  of 
libel.  The  case  was  not  argued  either  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  or  on  the  part  of  the 
defendants.  The  Supreme  Court  decided  that 
the  circuit  court  had  no  such  jurisdiction.  The 
opinion  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Justice  Johnson, 
who  stated  that,  as  the  decision  made  on  a  case 
of  libel  would  apply  to  every  case  in  which  the 
jurisdiction  was  not  vested  by  statute,  the  court 
had  before  it  the  broad  question  whether  or  not 
the  courts  of  the  United  States  could  exercise  a 
common-law  jurisdiction  in  criminal  cases. 
This  question  was,  he  said,  then  brought  up  for 
the  first  time  to  be  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  the  court  considered  that  it  had  been 
'  *  long  since  settled  in  public  opinion  '  \  In  no 
other  case  for  many  years  had  the  jurisdiction 
been  asserted,  and  the  ^*  general  acquiescence 


DEMOCBACT  61 

of  legal  men  '^  showed  the  prevalence  of  opinion 
in  favor  of  the  negative  of  the  proposition.  It 
was  not  necessary,  he  said,  to  inquire  whether 
the  government  possessed  the  power  of  con- 
ferring on  its  courts  a  jurisdiction  in  case?^  simi- 
lar to  that  then  pending;  it  was  enough  that 
such  jurisdiction  had  not  been  conferred  by  any 
legislative  act.  Such,  he  declared,  ''  was  the 
opinion  of  a  majority  "  of  the  court.  At  the 
same  time  he  admitted  that  **  certain  implied 
powers  must  necessarily  result  ''  to  the  courts 
of  justice  **  from  the  nature  of  their  institu- 
tion'', such  as  the  power  to  fine  for  contempt, 
to  imprison  for  contumacy  and  to  enforce  the 
preservation  of  order. 

If  the  question  was,  as  Mr.  Justice  Johnson 
stated,  new  to  the  Supreme  Court,  it  certainly 
was  previously  well  known  to  some  of  its  earlier 
judges.  It  first  became  known  to  them  in  the 
case  of  Henfield,  who  was  indicted  in  the  United 
States  circuit  court  at  Philadelphia  for  illegally 
enlisting  in  a  French  privateer.  This  case  was 
tried  in  1793  but  was  first  fully  reported  in 
1849,  in  the  volume  of  State  Trials  published 
in  that  year  by  Francis  "Wharton.^  The  de- 
fendant was  acquitted,  upon  a  verdict  of  the 

1  Wharton,  State  Trials,  p.  49. 


62  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

jury  of  not  guilty;  but  Judges  Wilson  ani  Ire- 
dell of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  Judge  Peters 
of  the  district  court,  who  sat  together  in  the 
trial,  concurred  in  holding  that  all  violations  of 
treaties,  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  of  the  com- 
mon law  were,  so  far  as  federal  sovereignty 
was  concerned,  indictable  in  the  federal  courts 
without  statute;  and  this  view  was  sustained 
by  Jefferson,  who  was  then  Secretary  of  State, 
and  by  the  Attorney  General,  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, in  an  official  opinion.  Not  long  after- 
wards the  consul  of  Genoa  was  tried  before 
Chief  Justice  Jay  and  Judge  Peters  and  was 
convicted,  at  common  law,  for  sending  a  threat- 
ening letter  to  the  British  Minister/  Subse- 
quently came  the  case  of  Isaac  Williams,  in 
which  a  similar  ruling  was  made  by  Chief  Jus- 
tice Ellsworth  of  the  Supreme  Court.^  Such 
was  the  state  of  the  law  when,  says  Wharton,^ 
Judge  Chase,  in  WorralPs  case,* — Chief  Justice 
Jay,  Judge  Wilson  and  Judge  Iredell  being  no 
longer  on  the  bench,  and  Chief  Justice  Ells- 
worth being  abroad, — ^^  startled  both  his  col- 

1  United  States  v.  Ravara,  2  Dallas,  297. 

2  Wharton,  State  Trials,  90,  652. 

3  1  Crim.  Law,  sec.  254. 

*  Wharton,  State  Trials,  189;  2  Dallas,  297. 


DEMOCRACY  63 

league  and  the  bar  "  by  announcing  that  he 
would  entertain  no  indictment  at  common  law. 
The  prisoner  had  in  fact  been  convicted,  and 
the  declaration  of  Judge  Chase  was  made  upon 
a  motion  in  arrest  of  judgment.  Judge  Peters, 
who  sat  with  Judge  Chase,  maintained  the  view 
previously  enforced  by  the  federal  judges,  and 
in  this  difference  of  opinion  a  mitigated  tliough 
substantial  sentence  was  imposed  upon  the  de- 
fendant. No  further  judicial  discussion  of  the 
question  appears  till  1812 ;  but  in  1813,  the  year 
after  the  case  of  United  States  v.  Hudson  and 
Goodwin,  the  question  whether  the  United 
States  had  common-law  jurisdiction  of  crimes 
came  before  the  United  States  circuit  court 
in  Massachusetts,  in  which  sat  Mr.  Justice 
Story,  who,  although  he  eventually  fell  under 
the  strong  federal  influence  of  Marshall,  was  of 
Eepublican  antecedents  in  the  party  sense. 
Mr.  Justice  Story,  while  admitting  that  the 
courts  of  the  United  States  were  of  limited 
jurisdiction,  contended  that,  when  authority 
was  once  conferred  upon  them,  its  nature  and 
extent,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  should  be  ex- 
ercised, must  be  regulated  by  the  rules  of  the 
common  law.  The  inference,  he  urged,  was 
plain  that  the  circuit  courts  had  cognizance  of 


64  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

all  offences  against  the  United  States  and  that, 
in  the  absence  of  statute,  they  were  to  he  de- 
fined and  punished  according  to  the  common 
law.  The  whole  difficulty  and  obscurity  had, 
he  said,  in  his  judgment,  arisen  from  losing 
sight  of  this  distinction.  Common  law  offences 
against  the  United  States  would  include  *^  all 
offences  against  the  sovereignty,  the  public 
rights,  the  public  justice,  the  public  peace,  the 
public  trade  and  the  public  police  of  the 
United  States.  ' '  Outside  of  this,  common  law 
offences  would  remain  cognizable  by  the  States, 
the  federal  courts  taking  cognizance  only  when 
the  offence  was  directed  *^  against  the  sover- 
eignty or  powers  confided  to  the  United 
States.^'  The  district  judge  dissented,  in  or- 
der that  the  question  might  again  be  brought 
before  the  Supreme  Court.  As  appears  by  the 
report,  a  majority  of  the  court  were  ready  to 
hear  the  question  reargued ;  but  no  counsel  ap- 
peared for  the  defendant,  while  the  Attorney- 
General  considered  that  the  point  was  deter- 
mined in  the  case  of  the  United  States  v,  Hud- 
son and  Goodwin,  with  the  result  that  the  court 
felt  itself  bound  by  the  authority  of  that  case 
and  so  certified  to  the  circuit  court.^ 

1  United  States  v.  Coolidge,  1  Gallison,  488 ;  1  Wheaton,  415, 


DEMOCRACY  65 

It  is  an  illustration  of  how  *^  chimeras  dire  '' 
sometimes  affright  the  human  mind,  that,  when 
the  suggestion  is  made  that  the  case  of  the 
United  States  v.  Hudson  and  Goodwin  was 
wrongly  decided,  the  propounder  of  this  view 
is  thought  to  believe  in  a  rank  departure  from 
settled  principles  and  the  obliteration  of  State 
jurisdiction.  For  this  view,  however,  there  is 
in  reality  no  foundation.  The  assumptions  of 
jurisdiction  in  the  earlier  federal  cases  related 
merely  to  offenses  against  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  and  no  one  ever  proposed  to  go 
further  or  imagined  that  the  government  could 
do  so.  Had  the  view  expressed  in  the  earlier 
decisions  been  adhered  to,  the  situation  today 
would  in  substance  have  differed  slightly,  if  at 
all,  from  that  which  actually  exists.  In  course 
of  time  the  whole  field  of  crimes  against  the 
United  States  has  been  covered  by  statute,  and 
many  crimes  have  been  created  which  were  not 
offences  at  common  law.  Moreover,  in  the  en- 
forcement of  this  statute  law,  in  which  crimes 
are  often  merely  designated  by  name,  it  has  con- 
stantly been  necessary  to  appeal  to  the  general 
common  law, — and  not  to  the  common  law  of 
any  particular  State, — for  rules  for  the  exer- 
cise of  the  jurisdiction  conferred  upon  the 
5 


55  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

courts,  and  for  the  definition  of  the  designated 
offences. 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the 
case  of  the  United  States  v.  Hudson  and  Good- 
win, shows  that  that  tribunal  was  not  disposed 
to  exaggerate  the  powers  of  the  national  gov- 
ernment, or  to  sanction  any  attempt  on  the  part 
of  that  government  to  usurp  authority;  but, 
after  1811,  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the 
court  held  their  appointment  from  administra- 
tions of  the  Republican  or  anti-Federalist  party. 
It  is  true  that  decisions  were  made  which  con- 
firmed and  tended  to  extend  the  sphere  of  action 
of  the  national  government;  but  the  most  of 
these  decisions, — although  they  were  criticized 
at  the  time,  —  have  received  the  general  ap- 
proval of  the  public  as  being  based  on  unim- 
peachable constitutional  grounds.  The  court 
declared  the  invalidity  of  State  laws  impairing 
the  obligations  of  contracts,^  but  this  was  in 
obedience  to  the  express  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution that  no  State  should  pass  any  law  caus- 
ing such  impairment.  The  supremacy  of  the 
judgments  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States 
was  upheld,  as  against  inconsistent  State  laws,^ 

1  Fletcher  v.  Peck,  6  Cranch,  87. 

2  United  States  v.  Petera,  5  Craneh,  136;  Cohens  v.  Virginia, 
6  Wheaton,  264. 


DEMOCRACY  67 

but  this  was  a  logical  inference  from  the  ex- 
press declaration  that  the  Constitution  and  the 
treaties  and  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof 
should  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  It  was 
held  that  the  United  States  might  incorporate 
a  bank  free  from  the  taxation,  control  or  ob- 
struction of  any  State/  but  this  was  only  a 
deduction  from  the  authority  conferred  upon 
Congress  to  make  all  laws  necessary  and  proper 
to  carry  into  effect  the  powers  vested  by  the 
Constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  It  was  affirmed  that  the  power  of  Con- 
gress to  regulate  commerce  embraced  all  the 
various  forms  of  intercourse  including  naviga- 
tion, and  that  *  *  wherever  commerce  among  the 
States  goes  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States  goes  to  protect  it  from  invasion  by  State 
legislatures,'*  2  but  the  Constitution  expressly 
gave  to  Congress  the  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations  and  among  the  sev- 
eral States  and  with  the  Indian  tribes. 

To  the  rule  that  the  constitutional  opinions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  earlier  decades  of 
the  nineteenth  century  continue  to  be  received 

1  McCuUoch  V.  Maryland,  4  Wheaton,  316,  421. 

2  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheaton,  1 ;  Brown  v.  Maryland,  12 
Wheaton,  419, 


68  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

as  authority,  perhaps  the  chief  exception  is  that 
which  was  delivered  by  Marshall  in  the  Dart- 
mouth College  case.^  This  case  grew  out  of  a 
contest  between  two  rival  boards  of  trustees, 
one  of  which  was  composed  of  the  successors 
of  the  original  incorporators  under  royal  grant, 
and  the  other  of  persons  appointed  under  an 
act  of  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire,  which 
had  undertaken  to  inquire  into  and  regulate  the 
affairs  of  the  institution.  It  lies  beyond  our 
present  purpose  to  trace  the  curious  judicial 
history  of  this  case  and  the  legal  jockeying  by 
which  it  was  characterized."  In  behalf  of  the 
successors  of  the  original  incorporators  it  was 
contended  that  the  action  of  the  State  of  New 
Hampshire  in  attempting  to  interfere  with  the 
exercise  of  powers  under  the  royal  charter  had 
violated  the  prohibition  placed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion upon  the  several  States  to  pass  any  law  im- 
pairing the  obligations  of  contracts;  in  other 
words,  that  acts  of  incorporation  constituted 
contracts  which  the   State  legislatures   could 

1  Dartmouth  College  v.  Woodward,  4  Wheaton,  518. 

2  The  Dartmouth  College  case  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  by  John  M.  Shirley,  1879;  A  Legal  Mummy,  or 
the  present  status  of  the  Dartmouth  College  case:  An  address 
delivered  before  the  Vermont  Bar  Association,  October  28,  1885, 
by  Aldace  F.  Walker,  President. 


DEMOCBACY  69 

neither  alter  nor  revoke.  Everyone  has  heard 
of  the  argument  of  Webster  in  favor  of  the 
contention  of  the  old  board.  Perhaps  fortun- 
ately for  this  contention,  the  court  did  not  af- 
ford an  opportunity  to  William  Pinkney  of 
Maryland,  the  leader  of  the  bar  of  the  United 
States  in  his  day,  to  be  heard  on  the  other  side, 
and,  without  having  enjoyed  the  advantage  of 
Pinkney 's  great  powers  of  argument  and  of 
oratory,  decided  in  favor  of  the  old  board. 

The  decision,  although  it  preserved  the  rights 
claimed  under  the  royal  grant  in  the  principal 
case,  proved  to  be  utterly  ineffective  to  accom- 
plish the  general  purpose  which  it  was  at  the 
time  apparently  thought  to  serve.  Its  effect 
has  been  greatly  circumscribed  by  later  de- 
cisions even  as  regards  prior  acts  of  incor- 
poration; but  for  the  future  its  effect  was 
promptly  nullified  by  the  inclusion  by  State 
legislatures  in  their  grants  of  incorporation  of 
express  reservations  of  the  right  of  amendment 
and  repeal,  and  by  the  passage  of  general  laws 
declaring  all  charters  thereafter  granted  to  be 
subject  to  alteration,  amendment  and  repeal. 

Meanwhile  the  cause  of  democracy  was  mak- 
ing general  progress  throughout  the  States. 
The  so-called  Federalist  party,  coming  to  be 


70  AMEBICAN  DEVELOFMENT 

identified  not  so  mucli  with  the  national  aspir- 
ations that  produced  the  Constitution  as  with 
certain  policies  in  domestic  and  foreign  affairs 
of  unpopular  tendency,  lost  its  following  and 
ceased  to  exist,  the  surviving  adherents  of  its 
later  creed  often  becoming  the  exponents  of 
chronic  dissatisfaction  and  discontent,  and 
sometimes  even  of  disloyalty,  rather  than  of 
federalism.  Men  like  Jefferson,  Madison  and 
John  Dickinson,  who  as  advocates  of  a  constitu- 
tion were  Federalists  in  1787,  resumed  their 
place  as  leaders  in  the  popular  agitation  which, 
distinctly  reappearing  as  early  as  1791,  carried 
on  to  further  victories  the  democratic  move- 
ment of  which  the  Eevolution  was  itself  the 
product. 

The  popular  party,  first  called  Eepublican, 
became  Democratic-Eepublican,  and  then  sim- 
ply Democratic,  and,  eventually  coming  to  em- 
brace for  a  time  substantially  the  entire  popu- 
lation, divided  on  personal  rather  than  on  poli- 
tical lines.  The  election  of  the  President  was 
practically  taken  from  the  hands  of  the  small 
and  select  electoral  body  in  which  the  Constitu- 
tion had  placed  it  and  was  transferred  by  popu- 
lar action  to  the  people  themselves.  Candi- 
dates came  to  be  nominated  by  national  con- 


DEMOCRACY  71 

ventions,  and  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  casting 
their  ballots  for  the  one  candidate  or  the  other 
that  the  electors  in  the  several  States  were 
chosen. 

This  revolution  in  national  methods  was 
only  a  reflection  of  what  had  been  going  on  in 
the  several  States.  The  States  had  been  be- 
coming more  and  more  democratic  in  their 
constitutions  and  government.  There  is  noth- 
ing to  marvel  at  in  this  process  when  it  is  re- 
flected that  the  doctrine  of  natural  rights  pro- 
claimed by  the  Declaration  of  Independence, — 
a  proclamation  which  formulated  but  did  not 
create  the  popular  belief, — had  found  its  way  in- 
to one  after  another  of  the  State  constitutions. 
Virginia,  in  her  anticipatory  bill  of  rights 
adopted  at  Williamsburg  on  June  12,  1776, 
which  was  afterwards  prefixed  to  her  constitu- 
tion, declared  that  *^  all  men  are  by  nature 
equally  free  and  independent,  and  have  cer- 
tain inherent  rights,  of  which  when  they  enter 
into  a  state  of  society,  they  cannot,  by  any  com- 
pact, deprive  and  divest  their  posterity; 
namely,  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty,  with 
the  means  of  acquiring  and  possessing  prop- 
erty, and  pursuing  and  obtaining  happiness  and 
safety;''  that  **  all  power  is  vested  in,  and  con- 


l^ 


72  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

sequently  derived  from,  the  people ;  that  magis- 
trates are  their  trustees  and  servants,  and  at 
all  times  amenable  to  them;"  and  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  community  had  *^  an  indubitable, 
inalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  reform, 
alter,  or  abolish  "  their  government  in  the 
manner  ''  most  conducive  to  the  public  weal.'* 
Similar  clauses  may  be  found  in  the  constitu- 
tions soon  afterwards  adopted  by  Maryland, 
North  Carolina,  Pennsylvania,  and  Vermont. 
New  York,  in  her  constitution  of  1777,  incorpor- 
ates the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  its  en- 
tirety. Affirmations  of  popular  rights,  of  the 
inherence  of  political  power  in  the  people,  and 
of  the  right  to  alter  government  so  as  to  sub- 
serve the  public  interest,  as  therein  proclaimed, 
may  indeed  be  found  in  almost  every  State  con- 
stitution since  adopted. 

In  the  colonial  times  the  right  of  suffrage 
was  closely  restricted.  It  is  difficult  to  general- 
ize on  the  subject,  owing  to  the  diversity  of 
the  conditions  which  prevailed  in  the  different 
colonies ;  and  it  is  beyond  our  present  purpose 
to  enter  into  a  minute  examination  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  various  colonial  charters.  In 
some  instances,  special  moral  qualifications 
were  prescribed ;  in  others,  religious  tests  were 


DEMOCBACT  73 

exacted;   but    everywhere   property   qualifica- 
tions were  imposed. 

In  the  constitutions  which  the  States  began 
to  adopt  in  1776  religious  qualifications  were 
in  two  instances — New  York  and  South  Caro- 
lina— retained,  and  in  most  cases  some  quali- 
fication of  property  was  still  prescribed.^  But, 
with  the  progress  of  the  democratic  movement, 
the  property  qualification  gradually  disap- 
peared. By  the  constitution  of  Connecticut  of 
1818  all  white  male  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
twenty-one  years  old,  of  good  moral  character, 
who  either  (1)  possessed  a  freehold  estate  of 
the  annual  value  of  seven  dollars,  or  (2)  had 
performed  certain  military  duties,  or  (3)  had 
paid  a  State  tax  within  a  year,  were  declared 
to  be  qualified  electors.  In  Delaware,  by  the  con- 
stitution of  1776,  the  suffrage  was  confined  to 
freeholders,  but  by  the  constitution  of  1831  it 
was  given  to  all  resident  citizens.  Georgia  as 
early  as  1798  required  only  citizenship  and  resi- 
dence and  the  payment  of  all  taxes  levied  dur- 

1  Thorpe,  in  his  Constitutional  History  of  the  American 
People,  gives  (vol.  1,  pp.  93-97)  a  table  of  the  qualifications  of 
electors  prescribed  by  the  various  constitutions  from  1776  to 
1800.  He  estimates  that  there  were  during  that  period  about 
150,000  voters,  or  from  15  to  20  per  cent,  of  what  the  number 
would  have  been  on  the  basis  of  to-day. 


74  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

ing  the  year  preceding  the  election.  The  prop- 
erty qualifications  exacted  of  electors  in  Mary- 
land by  the  constitution  of  1776  were  abolished 
by  an  amendment  in  1810.  Subject  to  the  re- 
quirement that  lawfully  assessed  taxes  must 
have  been  paid,  we  find  in  the  constitutions  of 
Massachusetts  of  1780  and  1820  a  similar  trans- 
ition. In  New  Hampshire,  by  the  constitution 
of  1784,  every  adult  male  inhabitant  of  a  town 
and  parish,  with  town  privileges,  who  had  paid 
a  poll  tax,  was  invested  with  the  franchise.  A 
property  qualification  prescribed  in  New  Jersey 
in  1776  was  done  away  with  in  1844.  A  similar 
qualification  preserved  in  New  York  in  1777 
was  modified  in  1821  and  abolished  in  1846.  In 
North  Carolina  electors  of  senators  were  re- 
quired to  possess  a  freehold  of  fifty  acres  of 
land,  but  electors  of  members  of  the  more  nu- 
merous branch  of  the  legislature  need  only  have 
paid  public  taxes.  Only  the  payment  of  public 
taxes  was  required  in  Pennsylvania  as  early  as 
1776.  The  record  of  Ehode  Island  is  excep- 
tional, but  the  franchise  was  liberalized  in  1888. 
In  South  Carolina,  in  1778,  electors  embraced 
only  those  who,  besides  acknowledging  the  be- 
ing of  a  God  and  believing  in  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments,  possessed  a  freehold 


DEMOCBAOr  75 

of  at  least  fifty  acres  of  land  or  a  town  lot,  or 
had  paid  taxes  equivalent  to  a  tax  on  fifty 
acres.  This  was  modified  in  1790,  and  in  1810 
the  property  qualification  was  done  away  with 
in  the  case  of  a  person  who  had  actually  re- 
sided in  the  election  district  six  months.  Vir- 
ginia by  her  earlier  constitutions  restricted  the 
suffrage  to  freeholders,  leaseholders,  and  tax- 
paying  heads  of  families;  but  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  1850  it  was  extended  to  all  white  male 
citizens  who  had  resided  in  the  State  two  years 
and  in  the  voting  district  a  year.  In  the  new 
States  that  were  admitted  to  the  Union,  es- 
pecially after  1800,  any  conditions  beyond  those 
of  citizenship,  residence,  and  legal  age  were 
rarely  affixed,  and,  if  originally  imposed,  were 
soon  abolished.  This  was  only  what  was  to  be 
expected  in  the  vigorous  young  commonwealths 
of  the  West,  where  democratic  individualism 
had  an  unobstructed  sweep  and  flourished  for 
the  benefit  and  example  of  the  whole  country. 
Indiana  went  so  far  in  her  constitution  of  1851 
as  to  provide  that  every  voter  of  good  moral 
character  should  ''  be  entitled  to  admission  to 
practice  law  in  all  courts  of  justice  " — a  privi- 
lege only  lately  done  away  with. 

Meanwhile,    the    requirement    of    property 


76  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

qualifications  for  State  offices,  executive  and 
legislative,  and  particularly  for  that  of  mem- 
ber of  the  Senate  or  of  the  House  of  Eepre- 
sentatives  in  the  State  legislature,  progres- 
sively disappeared — in  Pennsylvania  in  1790,  in 
Maryland  in  1837,  in  Massachusetts  in  1840,  in 
New  Jersey  in  1844,  in  New  York  in  1846,  in 
Virginia  in  1850,  in  New  Hampshire  in  1852. 
In  Delaware  they  were  retained  after  1831  only 
as  to  senators.  They  survived  down  to  the 
civil  war  in  the  two  Carolinas.  In  the  new 
States  they  were  rarely  exacted,  and,  where 
imposed,  were  soon  removed. 

Nor  was  the  popularizing  of  governmental 
institutions  confined  to  the  executive  and  legis- 
lative departments.  Under  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  the  federal  judges  were  and 
still  are  appointed  by  the  President,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  for 
life  or  during  good  behavior,  and  are  remov- 
able only  by  impeachment.  In  the  States  the 
judges  of  the  various  courts  were  appointed  by 
the  governor  or  by  the  legislature  during  good 
behavior  or  perhaps  for  a  term  of  years.  In 
Vermont,  under  the  constitution  of  1793,  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  and  of  the  several 
county  and  probate  courts  were  elected  an- 


DEMOCBACY  77 

nually  by  the  legislature,  in  conjunction  with 
the  council,  and  it  was  not  until  1870  that  the 
term  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  was 
extended  to  two  years  and  their  election  made 
biennial.  In  Georgia,  in  1812,  it  was  provided 
by  constitutional  amendment  that  the  judges 
of  the  inferior  courts  should  be  elected  for 
four  years  by  the  persons  qualified  to  vote  for 
members  of  the  general  assembly.  In  1832  the 
people  of  Mississippi,  on  an  enthusiastic  but 
lasting  rebound  from  the  aristocratic  tendencies 
of  their  first  constitution,  took  the  bold  step  of 
making  their  entire  judiciary  elective  by 
popular  vote.  As  the  debates  in  the  constitu- 
tional convention  were  not  reported  and  pre- 
served, the  reasons  which  were  given  by  in- 
dividual members  for  supporting  so  important 
a  change  in  the  judicial  system  cannot  be 
quoted;  but  judging  by  the  reports  of  what 
took  place  in  other  constitutional  conventions 
on  similar  occasions,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  main  cause  was  the  wave  of  democratic 
feeling  then  sweeping  over  the  country,  prob- 
ably reinforced  by  complaints  of  misconduct  or 
inefficiency  on  the  part  of  individual  judges  in 
Mississippi  or  elsewhere.  By  the  constitution 
of  1832,  the  judicial  power  in  Mississippi  was 


78  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

vested  in  a  high  court  of  errors  and  appeals, 
and  such  other  courts  of  law  and  equity  as 
were  provided  for  in  that  instrument.  The 
high  court  of  errors  and  appeals  was  to 
consist  of  three  judges  who  were  to  be 
chosen  by  the  qualified  electors  of  each  of 
three  districts  into  which  the  legislature 
was  to  divide  the  State.  The  term  of  the 
judges  so  elected  was  limited  to  six  years,  and 
the  judges  were  to  vacate  their  offices  in  two, 
four  and  six  years,  respectively,  so  that  one 
judge  should  be  elected  every  two  years. 
Vacancies  were  to  be  filled  by  executive  ap- 
pointment only  if  the  unexpired  term  did  not 
exceed  one  year,  and  each  judge  must  be  at 
least  thirty  years  of  age.  Certain  courts  were 
established  with  judges  to  be  elected  for  a  term 
of  four  years.  These  judges  must  have  at- 
tained the  age  of  twenty-six  years.  There  were 
also  to  be  established  probate  courts  with 
judges  to  be  elected  for  two  years. 

The  method  thus  introduced  was  soon 
adopted  in  other  States  and  in  time  the  popular 
election  of  judges  became  the  general  practice. 
The  change  was  unquestionably  due  to  the 
growth  of  democratic  principles.  But  it  may 
be  doubted  whether  it  was  a  necessary  corol- 


DEMOCRACY  79 

lary  from  such  principles.  The  primary  duty 
of  a  judge  is  to  administer  the  laws  as  between 
man  and  man  and  as  between  man  and  the 
government  impartially  and  without  sense  of 
private  obligation,  hope  of  personal  reward  or 
fear  of  displeasure.  As  judges  are  only  men, 
they  will  in  any  event  be  more  or  less  subject 
to  the  influences  of  the  great  movements  of  hu- 
man thought  and  feeling  going  on  about  them. 
Beyond  this  it  is  not  desirable  that  they  should 
be  subject  to  impressions  from  sources  outside 
the  sphere  of  their  judicial  duties,  and  it  would 
be  difficult  to  show  that  popular  rights  have 
gained  either  in  extension  or  in  security  as  the 
result  of  placing  the  names  of  judges  upon 
party  ballots.  Certain  it  is  that,  if  there  be 
any  foundation  whatever  for  one  half  of  the 
criticisms  heard  today  of  the  decisions  of  elec- 
tive judges,  the  experiment  has  fallen  far  short 
of  the  measure  of  complete  success.  In  well 
known  instances  the  people  have  rebuked  fla- 
grant attempts  to  subject  judicial  candidates  to 
the  dictates  of  political  managers ;  but,  in  spite 
of  this  fact,  confidence  in  the  judiciary  has  not 
infrequently  been  impaired  by  the  general  dis- 
trust of  the  sources  from  which  nominations 
were  derived.     A  system  under  which  the  rights 


80  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

of  suitors  and  of  the  people  at  large  may  be 
exposed  to  impairment  at  the  hands  of  magis- 
trates who  lack  that  sense  of  security  and  in- 
dependence which  is  so  essential  to  judicial  rec- 
titude, cannot  be  regarded  as  necessarily  and 
essentially  democratic.  It  is  the  function  of  the 
judge  to  administer  the  law  as  it  is,  and  to  de- 
clare the  law  as  he  finds  it.  If  the  laws  need 
to  be  changed  the  legislature  can  change  them. 
Judges  are  not  immortal  and  their  terms,  un- 
less some  constitutional  provision  stand  in  the 
way,  can  be  limited,  to  say  nothing  of  impeach- 
ment or  other  process  provided  for  their  re- 
moval. 

Whether  in  the  first  instance  the  sentiment 
in  favor  of  the  popular  election  of  judges  was 
in  any  respect  due  to  opposition  to  the  assump- 
tion by  the  courts  of  the  then  novel  power  of 
declaring  acts  of  the  legislature  to  be  invalid, 
the  lack  of  reports  of  the  debates  in  the  earlier 
constitutional  conventions  renders  it  impos- 
sible certainly  to  say.  It  was  laid  down  by 
Blackstone  that  acts  of  Parliament  contrary  to 
natural  law  would  be  invalid,  but  no  court  had 
ever  been  found  in  England  to  apply  this  view. 
An  echo  of  the  doctrine  may  be  heard  in  some 
of  the  early  American  decisions  in  which  an 


DEMOCRACY  gl 

attempt  was  made  to  put  the  theory  into  prac- 
tice. It  became  a  reality  when,  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  written  constitutions,  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  various  States  be- 
gan to  declare  acts  of  Congress  and  of  the  State 
legislatures  to  be  unconstitutional,  in  order  to 
preserve  the  symmetrical  proportions  of  those 
fundamental  charters.  Acts  of  the  State  legis- 
latures which  violated  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  were  necessarily  invalid,  because 
it  was  expressly  declared  that  the  Constitution, 
and  the  treaties  and  laws  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  should  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
anything  in  the  laws  or  even  in  the  constitu- 
tions of  the  several  States  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. As  regards  the  federal  govern- 
ment, the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  States 
were  the  acts  of  subordinate  authorities.  But, 
when  a  United  States  court  declared  a  federal 
law  to  be  unconstitutional,  or  a  State  court 
declared  an  act  of  the  legislature  to  be  invalid 
because  it  was  conceived  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  local  constitution,  there  was  presented  a 
manifest  contradiction  of  opinion  and  of  con- 
duct as  between  co-ordinate  branches  of  the 
government.  It  was  therefore  doubted  whether 
such  an  exercise  of  power  by  the  judiciary  was 
6 


82  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

admissible;  in  other  words,  whether  the  courts 
were  the  exclusive  interpreters  and  sole  guar- 
dians of  the  purpose  and  meaning  of  constitu- 
tional provisions.  The  action  of  the  courts  was 
thus  necessarily  brought  into  the  arena  of  pub- 
lic discussion.  For,  the  questions  with  which 
the  courts  dealt  when  they  declared  acts  of 
legislation  to  be  unconstitutional  were  not  al- 
ways in  the  ordinary  sense  judicial  but  were 
sometimes  essentially  political,  involving  the 
application  of  principles  of  construction  on 
which  the  judges  inevitably  divided  according 
to  their  political  creeds.  This  certainly  was 
an  argument — and  one  not  wholly  devoid  of 
force — for  committing  the  election  of  judges  to 
the  people  and  making  it  a  party  question. 

The  same  argument  has  lately  been  advanced 
in  favor  of  rendering  the  judiciary  still  more 
responsive  to  popular  opinion,  by  subjecting  the 
judges,  as  has  been  done  in  certain  places,  to 
^*  recall. '^  In  Oregon,  for  instance — a  State  in 
which  the  judiciary  is  elective — any  public  offi- 
cer who  has  occupied  his  place  for  six  months 
may,  under  a  constitutional  amendment 
adopted  in  1908,  he  *^  recalled  '^  by  the  filing 
of  a  petition  signed  by  twenty-five  per  cent  of 
the  number  of  electors  who  voted  in  his  dis- 


DEMOCRACY  83 

trict  at  the  preceding  election.  The  petition 
must  state  the  reasons  for  the  recall;  and  if, 
within  five  days  after  it  is  filed,  the  officer  does 
not  resign,  the  question  of  his  recall  is 
then  authoritatively  determined  by  a  special 
election  which  must  be  ordered  to  be  held 
within  twenty  days,  and  at  which  the  rea- 
sons for  the  recall  and  the  officer's  justification 
may  respectively  be  set  forth  on  the  ballot  in 
not  more  than  two  hundred  words — a  limita- 
tion implying,  in  the  possible  case  of  differ- 
ences upon  questions  of  law,  the  possession  by 
accused  judges  of  a  power  of  illuminative  con- 
densation the  benefit  of  which  it  would  be  a 
misfortune  for  the  bench,  the  bar  and  the  pub- 
lic to  lose.  I  have  said  that  the  question  of  re- 
call is  authoritatively  determined  by  the  special 
election,  but  the  determination  is  not  neces- 
sarily final;  for  a  second  petition  may  be  filed 
if  the  petitioners  first  reimburse  the  govern- 
ment the  cost  of  the  previous  recall  election. 
Such  being  the  nature  and  operation  of  the 
process,  it  is  obvious  that  the  **  recall  ''  is  in 
principle  directly  opposed  to  the  supposition 
which,  in  spite  of  the  elective  system,  has  con- 
tinued to  be  entertained,  that  men  must  rely 
upon  independent  judges,  equipped  with  the 


84  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

special  learning  of  their  profession,  rather  than 
upon  popular  judgments,  for  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  laws  and  the  impartial  ad- 
ministration of  justice. 

Of  character  less  doubtful,  as  a  genuine  product 
of  democracy,  is  the  common  or  public  school 
system  which  universally  exists  throughout  the 
United  States.  With  the  extension  of  the  elec- 
tive franchise  the  conviction  deepened  that  the 
success  of  government  depended  upon  the  in- 
telligence of  the  masses,  and  together  with  this 
feeling  there  grew  the  desire  to  afford  to  all 
men  as  far  as  possible  an  equal  opportunity  to 
rise.  Influenced  by  sentiments  such  as  these, 
the  public  authorities  in  the  several  States,  re- 
sponding to  the  general  demand,  provided  with 
increasing  liberality  the  facilities  for  popular 
education,  at  first  in  the  lower  but  eventually 
also  in  the  higher  grades  of  study.  And  while 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  high-sounding  titles, 
such  as  that  of  ^^  university,''  have  often  been 
bestowed  upon  schools  not  even  of  collegiate 
rank,  yet  it  is  equally  true  that  certain  State 
universities  occupy  today  a  place  among  the 
strongest,  most  progressive  and  most  useful 
institutions  of  learning  in  the  country. 

The  great  democratic  movement,  while  it  was 


DEMOCEACY  85 

producing  such  far-reaching  results  in  the  life 
of  the  people  at  home,  was  also  naturally  re- 
flected in  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs.  As 
was  to  be  expected,  sympathy  with  assertions 
of  the  right  of  self-government  was  instinc- 
tively manifested.  The  revolutions  in  South 
America  were  enthusiastically  hailed  as  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  movement  for  the  emancipa- 
tion of  America  from  colonial  administration. 
But,  the  interest  of  the  American  people  was 
not  confined  to  the  American  continents.  Me- 
morials were  presented  to  Congress  and  reso- 
lutions adopted  by  State  legislatures  in  favor 
of  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
Greece.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  con- 
servative action  of  the  responsible  authorities 
of  the  government  in  refraining  from  encour- 
aging this  movement  scarcely  reflected  the  state 
of  popular  feeling.  This  feeling  was  perhaps 
more  correctly  expressed  by  a  gentleman  in 
the  western  part  of  the  State  of  New  York,  who, 
in  a  letter  to  James  Campbell,  once  leader  of 
Tammany  Hall,  declared  that  he  could  furnish 
**  five  hundred  men  six  feet  high  with  sinewy 
arms  and  case  hardened  constitutions,  bold 
spirits  and  daring  adventurers  who  would 
travel  upon  a  bushel   of  corn   and  a  gallon 


86  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

of  whiskey  per  man  from  the  extreme  part 
of  the  world  to  Constantinople,''  while,  if 
the  Holy  Alliance  should  take  sides  with 
Spain  against  her  former  American  colonies, 
**  our  backwoodsmen  would  spring  with  the 
activity  of  squirrels  "  to  the  assistance  of 
the  latter.^  If  in  France,  for  instance,  a 
monarchy  was  overthrown  and  a  republic  set 
up  in  its  place,  the  minister  of  the  United 
States  was  expected  to  be  the  first  to  recognize 
it  and  to  extend  to  it  a  cordial  welcome.  In  no 
case  was  the  popular  attitude  more  strikingly 
exhibited  than  in  that  of  Kossuth  and  the  Hun- 
garian revolution.  A  special  and  confidential 
agent  was  sent  by  the  Secretary  of  State  to 
Europe  to  watch  the  course  of  events,  and,  if 
Hungary  should  appear  to  be  able  to  maintain 
her  independence,  to  enter  into  relations  with 
her  government.  Before  this  agent  could 
reach  Hungary  the  revolution  had  practically 
come  to  an  end.  But  popular  interest  in  the 
affair  did  not  subside.    Kossuth  and  many  of 

1  The  letter  here  quoted,  which  the  present  writer  first  saw 
some  years  ago  by  courtesy  of  its  custodian,  has  lately  been 
published  in  her  volume  (pp.  40-42)  entitled  "As  I  Eemember: 
Recollections  of  American  Society  during  the  Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury. By  Marian  Gouverneur.  New  York  and  London,  D. 
Appxeton  &  Co.,  1911. ' ' 


DEMOCRACY  87 

his  associates  were  detained  in  Turkey,  where 
they  had  sought  refuge  after  the  failure  of  the 
revolution;  and  the  President  was  authorized, 
if  they  should  wish  to  emigrate  to  the  United 
States,  to  bring  them  over  in  a  public  vessel. 
The  U.  S.  S.  Mississippi,  which  was  despatched 
on  this  mission,  received  on  September  10, 
1851,  at  the  Dardanelles,  Kossuth  and  his  fam- 
ily and  fifty-five  other  persons.  At  that  time 
Europe  was  in  a  democratic  ferment;  and  at 
various  ports  in  the  Mediterranean  at  which 
the  Mississippi  called  demonstrations  in  honor 
of  the  distinguished  passenger  were  made  by 
democratic  societies  more  or  less  tinctured  with 
revolutionary  ideas.  At  Gibraltar,  Kossuth 
left  the  Mississippi  and  proceeded  to  England, 
where  a  great  ovation  awaited  him.  He  arrived 
at  New  York  early  in  December,  and  there  and 
at  many  places  in  other  States  which  he  visited 
he  was  acclaimed  by  applauding  multitudes. 
He  was  received  by  both  Houses  of  Congress, 
and  was  entertained  by  that  body  at  a  ban- 
quet at  which  the  President  of  the  Senate,  as- 
sisted by  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Eepre- 
sentatives,  presided,  and  at  which  Daniel 
Webster,  who  was  then  Secretary  of  State, 
made  a  speech  that  led  to  the  immediate  depar- 


88  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

ture  of  the  diplomatic  representative  of  Austria 
from  Washington.  It  is  recorded  of  William 
H.  Seward,  then  a  senator  of  the  United  States 
and  later  to  become  Secretary  of  State,  who 
was  also  present  at  the  banquet,  that  his  de- 
monstrations of  applause  by  hands  and  feet 
and  voice  were  excessive.  As  party  men 
Webster  and  Seward  were  Whigs,  but  as  can- 
didates for  public  favor  they  marched  with  the 
democratic  masses  and  even  sought  to  figure  as 
leaders  among  them.  Shall  we  begrudge  these 
careworn  statesmen,  one  nearing  the  end  of  his 
career  and  the  other  approaching  his  zenith, 
the  pleasant  sensation  of  plunging  with  ail  the 
ardor  and  indiscretion  of  youth  into  the  tumult 
and  effervescence  of  the  day? 

In  1853  the  Department  of  State  instructed 
the  diplomatic  representatives  of  the  United 
States  that  they  should,  so  far  as  they  could  do 
so  without  impairing  their  usefulness  to  their 
country,  appear  at  foreign  courts  *  ^  in  the  sim- 
ple dress  of  an  American  citizen,"  this  being, 
as  it  was  conceived,  a  proper  manifestation  of 
devotion  to  republican  institutions.  The  Sec- 
retary of  State  who  isaued  this  order  was  Wil- 
liam L.  Marcy,  a  statesman  whose  name  stands 
high  among  those  of  the  ablest  men  who  have 


DEMOCRACY  39 

occupied  that  great  office.  Marcy  was  a  demo- 
crat not  only  in  the  party  sense  but  also  in 
the  philosophical  sense — an  experienced  states- 
man and  an  able  administrator,  but  in  his  ha- 
bits a  model  of  unaffected  simplicity.  His 
democracy  he  had  learned  in  the  State  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, in  the  days  when  it  cost  something 
to  be  a  **  Eepublican  '^  in  that  great  common- 
wealth. It  was  a  favorite  jest  of  my  old  friend, 
the  late  Dr.  Francis  Wharton,  that  the  su- 
preme court  of  Massachusetts  once  decided  that 
Democrats  were  ferae  naturae  and  might  law- 
fully be  shot  on  sight.  Marcy  escaped  with  his 
life  and  early  settled  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
but  not  until  he  had,  according  to  his  own  ac- 
count, been  made  to  feel  that  his  principles 
were  reprobated  by  the  community  in  which  he 
lived.  This,  he  said,  no  doubt  with  perfect 
truth,  for  he  was  a  sturdy  character,  served 
only  to  confirm  his  devotion  to  them. 

The  democratic  influence,  as  inspired  by  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  is  further  shown 
in  the  advocacy  of  the  doctrine  of  expatriation. 
It  was  maintained  that  the  right  to  **  liberty  '' 
and  the  ^*  pursuit  of  happiness  ''  embraced  in- 
cidentally a  right  on  the  part  of  the  individual 
to  expatriate  himself  at  will.     This  view  was 


90  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  common  law, 
to  which  the  courts  generally  adhered.  But 
the  executive  asserted  the  right  of  expatriation 
in  limited  forms  till  James  Buchanan,  as  Sec- 
retary of  State  under  Polk,  declared  it  to  be  un- 
conditional. This  contention  Buchanan,  when 
President,  renewed.  It  was  reaffirmed  by  Con- 
gress in  the  broadest  sense  by  the  act  of  July 
27,  1868.  Beginning  with  the  naturalization 
treaty  with  the  North  German  Confederation, 
signed  at  Berlin  February  22,  1868,  a  partial 
but  substantial  recognition  of  the  claim  along 
practical  legal  lines  has  been  obtained  by  treaty 
from  various  governments. 

The  political  importance  of  the  question  of 
expatriation  was  decidedly  enhanced  by  the 
great  increase  of  immigration  after  the  first 
quarter  of  the  past  century.  The  French  Re- 
volution and  the  striking  success  of  the  repub- 
lican experiment  in  the  United  States  had 
wrought  a  profound  change  in  European 
thought  and  feeling.  The  arrangements  of  the 
Vienna  Congress  and  the  plans  of  the  Holy 
Alliance  were  swept  away  by  the  rising  tide  of 
nationalism.  Before  the  middle  of  the  cen- 
tury all  Europe  seemed  to  be  in  a  democratic 
ferment.     Paris,  Vienna,  Budapest,  Frankfort, 


DEMOCRACY  91 

Berlin  and  all  parts  of  Germany  and  Italy  were 
in  a  state  of  revolutionary  commotion.  Pro- 
ceeding from  such  conditions,  many  of  the  im- 
migrants of  the  time  looked  to  the  United 
States  not  more  as  the  land  of  opportunity  than 
as  the  land  where  would  be  fulfilled  their 
dreams  of  civil  and  political  liberty.  To  learn 
that  they  embraced  men  who  did  not  hesitate 
to  risk  their  lives  as  apostles  of  liberalism  and 
whose  presence  added  strength  to  the  demo- 
cratic cause,  we  have  only  to  recount  the  names 
of  Schurz,  Sigel,  Brentano,  Blenker,  Hecker, 
and  Osterhaus,  and  last,  but  not  least — honored 
in  both  hemispheres — that  of  the  living  Jacobi. 
If  they  lived  to  learn  that  even  in  America  the 
practical  and  the  ideal  are  not  always  the  same, 
and  that  in  politics  the  word  ^*  practical ''  may 
sometimes  convey  a  sinister  meaning,  it  may 
nevertheless  be  said  that,  without  rancor  to- 
wards their  native  land,  they  continued  to  bear 
on,  in  a  spirit  of  devotion  to  the  land  of  their 
adoption,  the  standard  of  democracy  and  free- 
dom as  the  symbol  of  their  service  and  their 
faith. 

For  certain  causes,  which  will  be  more  fully 
discussed  in  the  succeeding  lecture,  the  later 
course  of  the  great  democratic  movement,  which 


92  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

may  be  said  to  have  reached  its  highest  level  in 
the  decade  from  1850  to  1860,  was  overclouded 
by  the  ominous  mutterings  of  sectional  conten- 
tion and  strife.  Such  developments  are  not  to 
be  regarded  as  being  due  to  or  as  having  any 
legitimate  connection  with  the  democratic 
movement  itself.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  not  to 
be  doubted  that  the  general  sentiment  of  the 
great  American  democracy  always  was  and  al- 
ways continued  to  be  strongly  national. 

The  War  of  1812  was  a  popular  struggle  ad- 
vocated and  brought  on  by  leaders  who  faith- 
fully reflected  popular  sentiment. 

The  same  thing  may  be  said  as  to  the  genesis 
of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  This  was,  in  its  origin, 
a  defiance  to  those  who  would  suppress  inde- 
pendent governments  and  restore  the  system  of 
commercial  monopoly  and  political  absolutism 
on  the  American  continents.  It  was  in  this 
sense  that  it  found  an  enthusiastic  response  in 
popular  opinion.  That  it  did  not  lead  to  more 
intimate  political  relations  with  the  govern- 
ments of  Latin- America  was  due  to  various 
causes,  among  which  were  distance,  limited 
trade  relations,  and  differences  in  origin,  in 
language  and  in  manners.  An  appreciable  ef- 
fect must  also  be  ascribed  to  the  existence  of 


DEMOCBACT  '  93 

slavery  in  the  United  States  and  its  restrain- 
ing influence  upon  the  conduct  of  foreign  rela- 
tions. The  states  of  Spanish-America  had 
publicly  reprobated  slavery  and  declared  its 
abohtion.  They  early  espoused  the  cause  of 
Haiti  and  Santo  Domingo,  whose  independence 
the  United  States  refused  to  recognize  till  1862. 
Moreover,  it  was  evident  that  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine possibly  might  involve  wide  responsibili- 
ties. Buenos  Aires  was  more  than  twice  as  far 
from  New  York  as  New  York  was  from  Lon- 
don. Only  a  great  augmentation  of  the  army 
and  navy  could  place  the  United  States  in  a 
position  to  enforce  the  doctrine  if  the  govern- 
ment should  be  called  upon  to  do  so ;  and  such 
an  augmentation  would  excite  alarm  as  a 
menace  to  the  power  of  the  States  to  preserve 
and  defend  their  particular  institutions.  All 
these  elements  must  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
study  of  the  problem. 

Again,  in  the  case  of  the  Mexican  War,  a 
strong  national  sentiment  was  clearly  mani- 
fested. Here  we  find  the  opponents  of  slavery 
arrayed  against  the  policy  of  the  government, 
because  they  believed  that  it  would  result  in  an 
extension  of  the  territory  in  which  slavery 
existed  and  thus  increase  the  power  of  the  sup- 


94  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

porters  of  that  institution.  The  war  took  place 
under  an  administration  that  was  Democratic 
in  the  sense  of  party  politics,  but  in  the  ensuing 
national  campaign  the  Whigs  took  care  to  nom- 
inate as  their  candidate  the  military  com- 
mander whose  victorious  career  had  most  ap- 
pealed to  the  popular  fancy.  This  was  not  a 
mere  coincidence;  it  was  a  recognition  and  an 
acknowledgment  of  party  necessities.  It  took 
Abraham  Lincoln,  beloved  as  he  was  of  the 
common  people,  ten  years  to  recover  from  his 
opposition  to  the  war,  although  as  a  member  of 
Congress  he  voted  for  the  appropriations  to 
carry  it  on.  He  was  confronted  with  the  ghost 
of  his  opposition  when  he  came  to  the  great 
debate  with  Douglas  in  1858.  As  an  American 
statesman  who  had  witnessed  the  scene  once  re- 
marked to  me,  the  popular  sentiment  in  favor 
of  the  war  swept  down  the  valleys  of  the  Ohio 
and  Mississippi  like  a  tempest  across  the 
prairies.  But  for  the  question  of  slavery,  it 
may  be  affirmed  that  popular  sentiment  in  favor 
of  the  annexation  of  Texas  would  have  been 
substantially  undivided. 

The  spirit  of  democracy  was  not  sectional. 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  broadly  patriotic  and 
national.    True  it  is  that  it  was  Daniel  Webster, 


DEMOCRACY  95 

the  Whig,  who  uttered  those  eloquent  words, 
*  *  Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and 
inseparable;''  but  it  was  Andrew  Jackson,  the 
leader  of  the  Democratic  party  and  a  demo- 
crat in  the  broadest  sense,  who  met  the  first  ad- 
vance of  nullification  with  the  unequivocal  de- 
claration, **  Our  Federal  Union:  It  must  be 
preserved.''  These  kindred  and  indeed  iden- 
tical declarations  merely  gave  voice  to  the  na- 
tional spirit  of  the  American  democracy. 


LECTUEE  III 

Imperialism 

The  triumphant  march  of  the  American 
democracy — triumphant  in  the  spread  of  poli- 
tical and  civil  liberty  as  well  as  in  the  gen- 
eral diffusion  of  material  benefits  —  was 
suddenly  interrupted  by  the  operation  of  causes 
whose  existence  can  only  be  deplored.  At  the 
close  of  a  decade,  than  which  there  has  in  most 
respects  been  none  more  happy  in  American 
history,  dark  clouds  began  to  gather.  It  was 
difficult  to  believe,  nor  did  there  exist  among 
the  people  at  large  any  general  belief,  that  a 
storm  was  about  to  burst  over  the  land,  up- 
rooting settled  traditions  and  playing  havoc 
with  political  practices  and  habits  of  thought. 
On  the  contrary,  a  sense  of  confident  immunity, 
growing  out  of  exceptional  and  almost  exces- 
sive good-fortune,  made  the  people  incredulous 
as  to  predictions  of  impending  trouble. 

Moreover,  the  mutterings  of  impending  dis- 
aster were  due  to  controversies  growing  out  of 
the  presence  of  an  institution  which  was  es- 
sentially an  excrescence  upon  the  body  politic 

96 


IMPERIALISM  97 

— an  institution  not  indigenous  to  the  soil  or 
congenial  to  American  theories  of  government 
and  of  individual  right,  but  exotic  and  in  large 
measure  accidental.  The  introduction  of 
African  slavery  into  the  British  colonies  in 
America,  even  if  it  could  be  considered  at  the 
time  as  a  demerit  at  all,  was  not  the  work  of 
any  section  or  of  any  particular  part  of  the  in- 
habitants. Although,  after  the  decision  of  Lord 
Mansfield  in  Sommersett's  case  in  1772,^  the 
relation  of  master  and  slave  ceased  to  be  re- 
cognized in  England,  slavery  legally  existed 
in  the  British  colonies  in  America,  and  the  trade 
was  carried  on  by  those  at  the  North  as  well  as 
by  those  at  the  South.  In  the  course  of  time, 
the  holding  of  slaves  became  localized  in  the 
South,  as  the  result  of  the  fact  that  conditions 
of  climate  and  of  soil  in  that  section  were  fa- 
vorable to  the  production  of  staples  in  the  culti- 
vation of  which  slave  labor  could  be  conveni- 
ently employed.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  concurrently  with  the  efflores- 
cence of  the  doctrine  of  natural  rights,  there 
came  into  existence  a  worldwide  reprobation 
of  slavery  as  an  institution — a  feeling  of  which 

1  The   Case   of   James   Sommersett,   a   Negro,    20    Howell  '3 
State  Trials,  1;  yomerset  v.  Stewart,  1  Lofft's  Reports,  1. 

7 


98  AMEBIC  AN  DEVELOPMENT 

the  decision  in  Sommersett's  case  was  but  tlie 
reflection.  This  sentiment  extended  to  the  British 
colonies  in  America,  and  after  the  American 
revolution  was  shared  by  political  leaders  in 
the  South  as  well  as  in  the  North.  It  found 
concrete  expression  in  the  convention  of  1787 ; 
for,  although  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  recognized  slavery  and  provided  for  the 
protection  of  the  rights  of  the  master  over  the 
slave,  it  empowered  Congress  to  prohibit  the 
importation  of  slaves  after  1808.  In  due  time 
an  act  was  passed  ^  to  prohibit  such  importa- 
tion after  the  first  of  January  in  that  year.  As 
early  as  1794,  the  carrying-on  of  the  slave  trade 
from  the  United  States  to  any  foreign  country 
was  expressly  prohibited.^ 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that,  partly  as  the  result 
of  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin,  the  apparent 
profit  of  slave-holding  and  the  actual  value  of 
slaves  in  the  South  were  largely  increased,  the 
feeling  that  prevailed  among  earlier  Southern 
statesmen,  such  as  Washington,  Jefferson,  and 
Madison,  that  the  system  of  slavery  should  be 
done  away  with,  did  not  cease  to  be  entertained 

1  March  2,  1807. 

2  Act  of  Congress  of  March  22,  1794. 


IMPEBIALISM  99 

in  the  South.  It  is  true  that,  during  and  after 
the  civil  war,  when  memories  were  shortened  and 
visions  of  the  past  distorted  by  the  passions 
of  conflict,  the  view  was  industriously  propa- 
gated and  widely  accepted  that  at  an  early  day 
the  profits  derived  from  servile  labor,  especi- 
ally in  the  cultivation  of  cotton,  blinded  all  the 
people  of  the  South  to  the  evils  about  them  and 
welded  them  into  one  consistent  mass  of  advo- 
cates and  defenders  of  slavery.  This  miscon- 
ception is  now  gradually  but  surely  disappear- 
ing before  the  advance  of  historical  investiga- 
tion. It  is  estimated  by  an  eminent  authority 
that  out  of  the  population  of  the  slave-holding 
communities  not  more  than  one  in  thirty- 
three  was  a  slaveholder;  that  scarcely  one 
white  family  in  five  had  a  property  interest 
in  slaves;  and  that,  of  the  slaveholders  of 
the  South,  only  a  little  over  one-fifth  owned 
more  than  one  slave  each,  while  four-fifths 
owned  less  than  ten.^  The  great  majority  of 
the  soldiers  of  the  Confederacy  were  not  own- 
ers of  slaves.  The  same  thing  may  be  said  of 
Eobert  E.  Lee,  Joseph  E.  Jolmston,  and  A.  P. 
Hill,  and  doubtless  of  other  famous  military 
chieftains.    Slave  holding,  like  slave  sentiment, 

1  Hart,  Slavery  and  Abolition,  67-68. 


100  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

was  unequally  distributed.  The  situation  in 
South  Carolina  and  Mississippi  differed  widely 
from  that  in  Virginia  and  Tennessee.  Out  of 
143  emancipation  societies  in  the  United  States, 
in  1826,  it  is  stated  that  103  were  in  the  South. 
In  Virginia,  as  late  as  1832,  forty  years  after 
the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  and  less  than 
thirty  years  before  the  civil  war,  there  was  in 
progress,  in  the  legislature  and  among  the  peo- 
ple, an  active  movement  in  favor  of  the  gradual 
emancipation  of  the  slaves,  —  a  movement  in 
which  a  grandson  of  Jefferson,  representing 
one  of  the  largest  slave-holding  counties  of  the 
State,  was  one  of  the  leaders.  Virginia  was 
indeed  but  a  single  State;  but,  of  all  the  States 
in  the  South,  if  not  in  the  Union,  she  was  the 
one  the  most  venerated  and  the  best  beloved. 
Among  the  fathers  of  the  country  her  sons  were 
pre-eminent ;  she  was  rightly  called  the  Mother 
of  Presidents.  Her  continued  leadership  in  the 
cause  of  emancipation  would  have  exerted  an 
influence  which,  combined  with  the  public  opin- 
ion of  the  world  and  the  fuller  understanding  of 
economic  forces,  would  have  been  of  inestim- 
able value ;  but  the  efforts  of  her  emancipation- 
ists were  frustrated  and  the  further  prosecu- 
tion of  their  labors  was  rendered  impossible  by 


IMPERIALISM  101 

the  breaking-out  of  the  violent  abolitionist  agi- 
tation outside. 

It  is  unnecessary  here  to  enter  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  personal  merits  or  demerits  of  the 
abolitionist  agitators,  either  collectively  or  in- 
dividually—  to  extol  their  virtues  or  to 
censure  their  defects.  We  deal  with  causes 
and  effects,  and  with  personal  traits  and 
motives  only  in  this  sense.  It  is  a  fact, 
which  their  warmest  partisan  would  hardly 
deny,  that  they  placed  the  accomplishment 
of  their  cherished  object  above  the  pre- 
servation of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union. 
They  did  not  seek  to  conceal  this  view;  on 
the  contrary,  they  ostentatiously  avowed  it 
and  conspicuously  proclaimed  it,  Garrison 
eventually  hoisting  to  the  masthead  of  the 
Liberator  the  declaration  that  the  Constitu- 
tion was  **  a  covenant  with  death  and  an 
agreement  with  hell,''  involving  both  North 
and  South  in  **  atrocious  criminality,"  and 
that  it  should  be  **  immediately  annulled." 
It  is  needless  to  dwell  upon  the  profound  and 
radical  change  wrought  in  the  situation  by  the 
introduction  of  this  method  of  warfare,  carried 
on  in  terms  of  unmeasured  denunciation  and 
encouraging  and  supporting  local  enactments  to 


102  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

defeat  the  execution  of  constitutional  provis- 
ions. Lincoln,  in  his  eulogy  on  Henry  Clay, 
more  than  twenty  years  after  the  abolitionist 
crusade  began,^  while  holding  up  to  censure 
those  who  for  the  sake  of  perpetuating  slavery 
assailed  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  also  reprobated,  as  objects  of 
**  just  execration,"  those  who  for  the  sake  of 
immediate  abolition  would  **  shiver  into  frag- 
ments the  Union  of  these  States  '*  and  ^'  tear 
to  tatters  its  now  venerated  Constitution.'' 
The  effect  of  the  new  agitation,  besides  paralyz- 
ing Southern  efforts  for  emancipation,  was  to 
transform  the  controversy  from  one  over  moral 
right  into  one  over  legal  right,  with  the  result 
that  men  united  in  protecting,  even  to  the  point 
of  war,  the  legal  right,  who  differed  utterly 
as  to  the  moral  right.  The  distinction  is  plain 
and  is  constantly  acted  upon. 

To  say  that  to  defend  one's  rights  against  a 
peremptory  demand  for  their  abandonment  is 
to  fight  for  the  doing  of  all  that  the  law  allows 
to  be  done,  is  an  assertion  not  justified  by  logic. 
To  go  further  and  assume  that  the  demand  will 
be  rendered  more  persuasive  by  being  couched 
in  the  language  of  vituperation,  is  to  disregard 

1  The  Liberator  first  appeared  January  1,  1831. 


IMPERIALISM  103 

the  most  elementaiy  manifestations  of  human 
nature.  The  control  of  its  fiscal  system  being 
one  of  the  rights  of  an  independent  state,  he 
who,  because  of  his  belief  in  free  trade,  should 
refuse  to  join  in  repelling  a  truculent  demand 
upon  his  government  by  a  foreign  power  for 
the  abolition  of  protective  duties,  would  be 
counted  a  recreant  citizen  and  poor  patriot; 
and  even  the  circumstance  that  he  regarded  the 
collection  of  such  duties  as  moral  robbery, 
would  not  save  him  from  censure.  Such  are 
the  views  and  feelings  by  which  human  conduct 
is  ordinarily  controlled,  and  America  is  no 
stranger  to  them.  The  people  and  statesmen 
of  the  South  regarded  and  accepted  the  aboli- 
tionist agitation  as  a  challenge  to  take  meas- 
ures for  the  defence  of  rights  expressly  guar- 
anteed to  them  by  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws.  Meanwhile,  doctrines  which,  if  not 
wholly  novel,  had  languished  for  want  of  nour- 
ishment, but  which  were  peculiarly  adapted  to 
the  new  situation,  began  to  be  widely  dissem- 
inated, ecclesiastics  as  well  as  laymen  engaging 
in  their  propagation.  Slavery,  instead  of  be- 
ing excused  as  a  temporary  evil,  came  to  be  pro- 
claimed as  a  permanent  good.  The  true  foun- 
dation of  society  was  the  system  of  slavery; 


104  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

free  laborers  were  but  false  props,  or,  as  Ham- 
mond eventually  phrased  it,  *^  mud  sills. '^ 
Such  were  the  arguments  with  which  expedi- 
ency, often  the  unconscious  inventor  of  strange 
doctrines,  deluded  itself. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  slave  interest 
had  from  the  beginning  exhibited  a  certain  con- 
cern for  its  security.  Nor  does  this  seem 
strange,  when  we  reflect  upon  the  persistent 
localization  of  that  interest,  upon  the  existence 
of  anti-slavery  sentiment  even  among  South- 
ern leaders,  and  upon  the  fact  that  the  States  in 
entering  into  a  national  union  surrendered  in 
many  respects  the  right  of  free  self-determin- 
ation which  each  State  had  previously  pos- 
sessed uncontested.  The  States  specially  in- 
terested in  the  system  wished  to  retain  control 
of  it,  and,  even  if  its  abolition  should  eventu- 
ally come,  desired  to  abolish  it  in  their  own  time 
and  in  their  own  way.  While,  therefore,  they 
agreed  to  the  suppression  of  the  trade  at  a  fixed 
date,  they  asked  for  guarantees  for  the  pre- 
servation of  what  they  already  possessed. 
Such  guarantees  we  find  in  the  provision  of  the 
Constitution  for  the  equal  representation  of  the 
States  in  the  Senate,  in  the  inclusion  of  slaves 
in  the  basis  of  apportionment  of  members  of 


IMPERIALISM  105 

the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  and  in  the  clause 
for  the  recovery  of  fugitives  from  service  or 
labor. 

It  was  evident,  however,  that  the  effective- 
ness of  these  constitutional  provisions  for  the 
protection  of  local  institutions  must  depend 
more  or  less  upon  the  existence  of  a  uniform 
public  sentiment  and  of  an  equilibrium  of 
power  in  the  public  councils.  Even  the  rule  of 
equal  representation  in  the  Senate  might  prove 
to  afford  an  uncertain  and  feeble  assurance,  in 
the  presence  of  a  majority  from  free  States 
strongly  anti-slavery  in  sentiment.  It  was  this 
feeling  that  gave  rise  to  the  principle  of  the 
balance  of  power,  which  found  expression  in 
the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820.  This  com- 
promise left  behind  it  little  or  no  trace  of  bit- 
terness. It  was  the  result  of  a  spirit  of  friendly 
accommodation  on  both  sides.  Nevertheless, 
it  was  a  principle  the  introduction  of  which 
boded  ill  for  the  future.  From  the  principle  of 
democratic  individualism,  which  preceded  as 
well  as  succeeded  the  formation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, it  radically  differed.  In  that  principle 
there  was  no  suggestion  of  dissension,  of  sec- 
tional antagonism,  or  of  national  disruption. 
States*  rights,  in  this  sense,  conveyed  no  im- 


106  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

plication  of  disunion.  Not  so  with  the  principle 
of  the  balance  of  power;  it  imported  into  the 
relations  between  the  States  a  political  concep- 
tion which,  in  Europe,  had  led  to  bloody  and 
exhausting  struggles.  States^  rights,  in  the 
sense  of  the  balance  of  power,  conveyed  the  im- 
plication of  a  sense  of  danger  and  foreshadowed 
a  future  of  enmity,  strife  and  dissension. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  workings  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  balance  of  power  that,  as  it  is  rooted 
in  a  sense  of  insecurity,  it  seeks  to  safeguard 
itself  by  obtaining  a  preponderance,  and  this 
desire  increases  in  proportion  to  the  sense  of 
danger.  As  the  agitation  against  slavery  grew, 
the  activity  of  the  defenders  of  slavery  in- 
creased. The  spirit  of  compromise  gradually 
disappeared.  Calhoun,  the  ardent  advocate  of 
the  War  of  1812,  the  eloquent  proponent  of  in- 
ternal improvements  for  the  purpose  of  *'  con- 
necting more  closely  the  interests  of  various 
sections  of  this  great  country,''  the  strenuous 
supporter  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  at  the  time 
of  its  promulgation,  became  the  exponent  of 
nullification  and  the  instinctive  antagonist  of 
all  measures  that  looked  to  the  enhancement  of 
the  power  of  the  national  government.  In  or- 
der to  moderate  the  growing  estrangement,  na- 


IMPERIALISM  107 

tional  men,  Whigs  and  Democrats  alike,  North 
and  South,  manifested  a  constant  willingness  to 
make  concessions.  New  efforts  at  compromise 
were  made,  and  the  spirit  of  compromise  still 
remained  in  the  air  till  the  pronouncement  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  made 
an  adjustment  on  the  geographical  basis  of 
1820  legislatively  impracticable.  The  declar- 
ation of  the  court  that  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise was  unconstitutional  rendered  unattain- 
able the  proposal  to  conciliate  the  interests  of 
freedom  and  slavery  by  extending  the  line  of 
that  compromise  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  while  the 
slaveholder  now  refused  to  surrender  the  right, 
which  the  court  had  declared  to  belong  to  him 
under  the  Constitution,  to  carry  his  slaves  into 
any  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States  and 
hold  them  there  in  bondage.  The  contest,  upon 
the  fair  settlement  of  which  any  three  intelli- 
gent and  disinterested  men,  whose  minds  were 
not  biased  by  partisanship,  should  have  been 
able  to  agree  in  half  an  hour,  began  to  be 
spoken  of  as  the  ^^  irrepressible  conflict."  It 
proved  indeed  to  be  irrepressible,  but  only  in 
the  sense  that  controversy  had  driven  men  to 
extremes  and  passion  had  taken  the  place  of 
reason. 


108  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

In  November  1860  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
elected  President  of  the  United  States.  His 
electoral  votes  came  wholly  from  North  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  A  divided  Demo- 
cratic party  had  opened  the  way  to  his  election. 
The  Eepublican  platform  had  denied  the  au- 
thority of  Congress  or  of  a  Territorial  legisla- 
ture **  to  give  legal  existence  to  slavery  in  any 
territory  of  the  United  States.''  Immediately 
after  the  election,  a  convention  was  called  in 
South  Carolina,  and  in  due  time  the  secession 
of  the  State  was  determined  upon,  because  the 
party  by  which  Lincoln  was  elected  had,  as  was 
declared,  ^'  announced  that  the  South  shall  be 
excluded  from  the  common  territory."  The 
example  of  South  Carolina  was  soon  followed 
by  Alabama,  Georgia,  and  other  Southern 
States;  but  it  was  not  till  after  Fort  Sumter 
was  fired  upon,  that  Virginia  and  North  Caro- 
lina decided  to  secede. 

The  administration  of  Buchanan,  during  the 
last  four  months  of  which  the  secession  move- 
ment took  place,  pursued  a  conciliatory  course, 
in  the  hope  that  peaceful  measures  for  the  pre- 
servation of  the  Union  might  be  devised,  and 
that,  if  compromise  should  fail.  Congress  might 
adopt  laws  for  strengthening  the  hands  of  the 


IMPERIALISM  109 

Executive.  Among  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  there  were  only  two  statutes  by  which 
the  President  was  authorized  to  deal  with  in- 
surrection or  rebellion.  By  the  act  of  Febru- 
ary 28,  1795,'  entitled  *'An  Act  to  provide  for 
calling  forth  the  Militia  to  execute  the  laws  of 
the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  in- 
vasions,^' it  was  provided  (sec.  1)  that  in  case 
the  United  States  should  be  '^  invaded  '*  or 
threatened  with  ^^  invasion,''  and  ^^  in  case  of 
insurrection  in  any  State,  against  the  govern- 
ment thereof,"  the  President  might,  on  appli- 
cation of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  executive,  if 
the  legislature  could  not  be  convened,  call  forth 
the  militia  of  any  other  State  for  the  purpose  of 
meeting  the  invasion  or  suppressing  such  in- 
surrection; and  that,  (sec.  2)  in  case  the  ^4aws'' 
of  the  United  States  should  be  *'  opposed,  or 
the  execution  thereof  obstructed,  in  any  State, 
by  combinations  too  powerful  to  be  suppressed 
by  the  ordinary  course  of  judicial  proceed- 
ings," or  by  the  powers  vested  by  the  act  in 
the  United  States  marshals,  it  should  be  law- 
ful for  the  President  to  call  forth  the  militia 
of  any  of  the  States  '*  to  suppress  such  com- 
binations, and  to  cause  the  laws  to  be  duly  exe- 

1  1  statutes  at  Large,  424. 


110  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

cTited/'  In  addition  to  this  statute,  there  was 
the  act  of  March  3,  1807,"  entitled  **An  Act 
authorizing  the  employment  of  the  land  and 
naval  forces  of  the  United  States,  in  cases  of 
insurrection."  By  this  act  it  was  provided 
**  that  in  all  cases  of  insurrection,  or  obstruc- 
tion to  the  laws,  either  of  the  United  States,  or 
of  any  individual  State  or  territory, '^  where  it 
was  *  lawful  for  the  President  .  .  .  to  call  forth 
the  militia  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  such 
insurrection,  or  of  causing  the  laws  to  be  duly 
executed, ' '  it  should  *  *  be  lawful  for  him  to  em- 
ploy, for  the  same  purposes,  such  part  of  the 
land  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States,  as 
shall  be  judged  necessary,  having  first  observed 
all  the  prerequisites  of  the  law  in  that  respect.  * ' 
Besides  these  statutes,  there  were  the  laws  re- 
lating to  the  collection  of  the  customs. 

In  the  annual  message  of  President  Buchanan 
of  December  3,  1860,  on  the  assembling  of  Con- 
gress, not  only  was  the  existing  state  of  federal 
legislation  discussed,  but  the  entire  political 
situation  was  reviewed.  No  State  had  then 
passed  an  ordinance  of  secession,  but  conven- 
tions had  been  called  in  four  States  —  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  and  Florida — 

t  2  stats,  at  Large,  443. 


IMPERIALISM  111 

and  the  contagion  appeared  to  be  spreading. 
At  the  outset  Buchanan  declared  that  the  re- 
sult of  the  presidential  election  did  ^'  not  of 
itself  afford  just  cause  for  dissolving  the 
Union,"  the  more  especially  as  Lincoln's  elec- 
tion had  **  been  effected  by  a  mere  plurality 
and  not  a  majority  of  the  people.''  The  com- 
bined popular  vote  of  Bell,  Breckinridge  and 
Douglas  in  fact  exceeded  that  of  Lincoln  by 
nearly  a  million.^  In  order  to  justify  **  re- 
volutionary resistance  "  the  federal  govern- 
ment must,  said  Buchanan,  be  guilty  of  **  a  de- 
liberate, palpable,  and  dangerous  "  exercise  of 
powers  not  granted  by  the  Constitution.  That 
the  federal  government  was  a  mere  voluntary 
association  of  States  to  be  dissolved  at  pleas- 
ure by  any  one  of  the  contracting  parties — a 
**  rope  of  sand  "  to  be  dissolved  by  the  first  ad- 
verse wave  of  public  opinion  in  any  of  the 
States,  was,  he  affirmed,  a  contention  **  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  history  as  well  as  the 
character  of  the  federal  Constitution,"  and  was 
met  and  refuted  by  Jackson  in  his  message  of 
January  16,  1833,  on  the  nullifying  ordinance 
of  South  Carolina.     The  government  created 

1  Bell,    590,631;     Breckenridge,    847,953;     Douglas,    1,375,- 
157-total,  2,813,741.    Lincoln,  1,866,452.    Difference,  947,289. 


112  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

by  the  Constitution  had,  declared  Buchanan, 
precisely  the  same  right  to  exercise  its  power 
over  the  people  of  all  the  States  within  its  ap- 
propriate sphere  as  the  State  governments  had 
with  respect  to  the  subjects  not  delegated  to 
the  United  States;  in  short  secession  was 
^^  neither  more  nor  less  than  revolution.'' 
Meanwhile,  what,  he  inquired,  was  *^  the  re- 
sponsibility and  true  position  of  the  Execu- 
tive?" He  was  **  to  take  care  that  the  laws 
be  faithfully  executed.''  This  was,  said 
Buchanan,  at  the  moment  rendered  impractic- 
able in  South  Carolina,  so  far  as  the  laws  for 
the  administration  of  justice  by  the  federal 
judiciary  were  concerned,  all  the  federal  offi- 
cers having  resigned,  so  that  there  was  no 
longer  a  district  judge,  a  district  attorney,  or 
a  marshal  in  the  State.  By  the  acts  of  1795 
and  1807,  the  President  was,  he  said,  author- 
ized to  call  forth  the  militia  and  employ  the 
army  and  navy  to  aid  a  marshal  who,  with  his 
^0556  comitatus,  was  unable  to  execute  process, 
but  this  duty  could  not  be  performed  where 
there  was  no  judicial  authority  by  which  pro- 
cess could  be  issued.  Congress  alone  had 
power  to  decide  whether  the  laws  could  or 
could  not  be  amended  so  as  to  carry  out  more 


IMPERIALISM  113 

effectually  the  objects  of  the  Constitution.  The 
same  insuperable  obstacles  did  not,  he  affirmed, 
lie  in  the  way  of  executing  the  laws  for  the  col- 
lection of  the  customs.  With  regard  to  the 
property  of  the  United  States  in  South  Caro- 
lina, he  stated  that  he  did  not  believe  that  any 
attempt  would  be  made  to  expel  the  United 
States  from  it,  but  that,  if  such  an  attempt 
should  be  made,  the  officer  in  command  had 
been  instructed  to  act  strictly  on  the  defensive, 
and  that  **  the  responsibility  for  the  conse- 
quences would  rightfully  rest  upon  the  heads 
of  the  assailants. '' 

Buchanan  then  proceeded  to  discuss  the 
question  of  the  right  of  Congress  **  to  declare 
and  make  war  against  a  State  ''  for  the  pur- 
pose of  '*  coercing  ''  it  into  submission  to  the 
Union,  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  no  such 
power  had  been  delegated  by  the  Constitution 
to  Congress  or  to  any  other  department  of  the 
government.  Even  supposing  that  such  a  war 
should  result  **  in  the  conquest  of  a  State,'' 
**  how,"  he  inquired,  **  are  we  to  govern  it 
afterwards!  Shall  we  hold  it  as  a  province 
and  govern  it  by  despotic  power!  In  the  na- 
ture of  things,''  he  continued,  *^  we  could  not, 
by  physical  force,  control  the  will  of  the  people 
8 


114  AMEBIC  AN  DEVELOPMENT 

and  compel  them  to  elect  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives to  Congress,  and  to  perform  all  the 
other  duties  depending  upon  their  own  voli- 
tion and  required  from  the  free  citizens  of  a 
free  State  as  a  constituent  member  of  the  Con- 
federacy." He  therefore  proposed,  as  a  solu- 
tion of  all  difficulties,  instead  of  a  resort  to 
force,  the  adoption  of  certain  amendments  to 
the  Constitution. 

This  passage  on  State  coercion  has  been  criti- 
cised as  being  at  variance  with  the  principle 
of  self-preservation  and  as  offering  a  loophole 
to  secession;  but  I  venture  to  say  that  it  has 
been  much  misinterpreted.  In  support  of  this 
view  it  would  not  suffice  to  say  that  the  mes- 
sage, in  all  its  parts,  closely  and  often  literally 
follows  an  opinion  given  to  Buchanan  by  his 
Attorney  General,  Judge  Jeremiah  S.  Black, 
on  November  20,  1860,^  for,  although  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  Judge  Black  was  a  staunch  Union 
man,  and  although  it  appears  that  he  gave  the 
opinion  on  his  own  proposal,  even  preparing 
with  his  own  hand  the  questions  which  he 
should  be  requested  to  answer,  yet,  being  only 
human,  he  too  might  have  fallen  into  error. 

1  9  Opinions  of  the  Attorneys  General,  517 ;  Works  of  James 
Buclianan,  XI,  20. 


IMPEBIALISM  115 

Nor  is  it  necessary  to  advert  to  the  circum- 
stance that  the  message  met  the  approval  of 
all  the  Unionist  members  of  the  cabinet,  includ- 
ing General  Cass,  who  seems  to  have  desired 
that  the  disclaimer  of  State-coercive  power  un- 
der the  Constitution  be  made  more  emphatic. 
I  desire  merely  to  point  out,  in  the  first  place, 
that,  following  the  unequivocal  denial  of  the 
right  of  secession  and  the  assertion  of  the  right 
of  the  federal  government  to  enforce  its  own 
laws  and  defend  its  own  property,  the  passage 
forms  a  transition  and  an  introduction  to  the 
recommendation  of  measures  of  compromise; 
and,  in  the  second  place,  that,  in  spite  of  all 
precautions  taken,  by  amendment  and  other- 
wise, to  *^  preserve  the  results  of  the  war,''  the 
difficulty  of  controlling  by  force  the  will  of  the 
people  of  a  State  so  as  to  compel  them  to  elect 
Senators  and  Bepresentatives  and  perform 
various  other  obligations  to  the  Union  remains 
today  unsolved  by  any  constitutional  provision. 
Nor  was  it  in  fact  solved  during  the  war  or 
during  the  troubled  days  that  followed  except 
upon  the  avowed  principle,  which  confessedly 
lay  outside  the  Constitution  and  which  was  first 
conceived  in  the  throes  of  the  great  conflict,  of 
holding  and  administering  States  as  conquered 


116  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

provinces.  In  1862  the  Supreme  Court  de- 
clared in  the  Prize  Cases  ^  that  Congress, 
though  possessing  the  power  to  declare  war, 
could  not  ^*  declare  war  against  a  State,  or 
against  any  number  of  States,  by  virtue  of  any 
clause  in  the  Constitution." 

That  Buchanan  perfectly  understood  and 
foresaw  that,  from  the  exercise  of  the  power 
to  execute  the  federal  laws  and  to  defend  the 
federal  property,  war  might  result,  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  In  connection  with  the  proposals 
of  compromise  made  in  his  annual  message  of 
1860  he  naturally  did  not  give  prominence  to 
this  phase ;  but,  in  transmitting  to  Congress  on 
January  8,  1861,  his  correspondence  with  the 
South  Carolina  commissioners,  whose  State 
had  then  passed  the  ordinance  of  secession,  al- 
though he  again  expressed  the  opinion  that  he 
'*  had  no  right  to  make  aggressive  war  upon 
any  State  "  and  that  this  power  was  by  the 
Constitution  ^'  wisely  withheld  .  .  .  even  from 
Congress,''  he  declared,  in  italics,  that  *^  the 
right  and  the  duty  to  use  military  force  de- 
fensively against  those  who  resist  the  federal 
officers  in  the  execution  of  their  legal  functions, 
and  against  those  ivho  assail  the  property  of 

1  2  Black,  635,  668, 


IMPERIALISM  117 

the  federal  government,  is  clear  and  mideni- 
able;^^  and  significantly  added;  **At  the  begin- 
ning of  these  unhappy  troubles  I  determined 
that  no  act  of  mine  should  increase  the  excite- 
ment in  either  section  of  the  country.  If  the 
political  conflict  were  to  end  in  a  civil  war,  it 
was  my  determined  purpose  not  to  commence 
it,  nor  even  to  furnish  an  excuse  for  it  by  any 
act  of  this  government."  In  a  letter  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  citizens  of  Chester  and  Lancaster 
counties,  Sept.  28,  1861,  he  referred  to  the 
struggle  as  **  a  war  which  had  become  inevit- 
able by  the  assault  of  the  Confederate  States 
upon  Fort  Sumter.''  And  again,  in  a  letter 
to  Judge  Black,  March  4, 1862,  he  wrote : ' '  They 
[the  South]  chose  to  commence  civil  war,  and 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  no  alternative  but  to  defend 
the  country  against  dismemberment.'' 

The  state  of  peace  being  still  unbroken,  Lin- 
coln, as  his  inaugural  address  foreshadowed, 
continued  the  conciliatory  eiforts  of  his  pre- 
decessor. The  situation  was  suddenly  and 
radically  changed  by  the  shot  fired  in  Charles- 
ton harbor  on  April  12,  1861.  The  attack  on 
Fort  Sumter,  so  far  as  it  was  inspired  by  the 
belief,  which  had  been  distinctly  avowed,  that 
the  shedding  of  blood  would  lead  Virginia  and 


118  AMEBIC  AN  DEVELOPMENT 

North  Carolina  to  make  common  cause  with 
their  sisters  of  the  South,  was  well  calculated; 
but,  in  the  passionate  blindness  of  the  hour,  it 
failed  to  reckon  with  the  national  spirit  of  the 
American  democracy,  which,  if  it  could  not  find 
the  means  of  preserving  the  Union  in  the  letter 
of  the  law,  would  grasp  them  wherever  it  might 
find  them. 

The  President  proceeded  promptly  to  meet 
the  situation.  On  the  15th  of  April,  he  issued 
a  proclamation  in  which,  after  reciting  that  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  were  opposed  and 
their  execution  obstructed,  in  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  Florida,  Mississippi,  Louis- 
iana, and  Texas,  **  by  combinations  too  power- 
ful to  be  suppressed  by  the  ordinary  course  of 
judicial  proceedings,  or  by  the  powers  vested 
in  the  marshals  by  law,''  he  called  forth  the 
militia  to  the  aggregate  of  75,000  men,  ^*  in  or- 
der to  suppress  said  combinations,  and  to  cause 
the  laws  to  be  duly  executed."  In  this  pro- 
clamation the  President  obviously  invoked  the 
act  of  1795 ;  but  he  did  not  rely  solely  upon  the 
terms  of  the  law.  He  appealed  **  to  all  loyal 
citizens  to  favor,  facilitate,  and  aid  ''  his  **  ef- 
fort to  maintain  the  honor,  the  integrity,  and 
existence  of  our  national  union,  and  the  per- 


IMPERIALISM  119 

petuity  of  popular  government.''  He  stated 
that  the  first  service  to  be  performed  by  the 
forces  called  forth  would  be  to  repossess  the 
forts,  places  and  property  which  had  been 
seized  from  the  Union.  In  conclusion  he  sum- 
moned Congress  to  assemble  on  the  4th  of  the 
ensuing  July,  to  consider  and  determine  upon 
such  measures  as  the  public  safety  and  interest 
might  seem  to  demand. 

Events  moved  rapidly.  On  the  19th  of  April, 
four  days  after  calling  forth  the  militia,  the 
President  proclaimed  a  blockade  of  the  ports 
of  the  seceded  States.  In  this  proclamation 
he  recited  that  the  revenue  laws  could  not  be 
executed  in  those  States,  and  referred  to  the 
necessity  of  protecting  the  lives  and  property 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States  engaged  in 
maritime  conmaerce;  but  the  blockade  was,  in 
substance  and  in  effect,  a  measure  of  public 
war,  and  its  character  as  such  was  soon  avowed 
by  the  Department  of  State,  which  advised  the 
diplomatic  corps  that  it  was  to  be  considered  as 
a  blockade  under  the  law  of  nations.  On  April 
27,  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  having  then 
declared  their  secession  from  the  Union,  the 
blockade  was  extended  to  the  coasts  of  those 
States. 


120  AMEBIC  AN  DEVELOPMENT 

The  legality  of  these  proclamations  was 
afterwards  passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court 
and  was  affirmed  by  a  bare  majority  of  five  to 
four/  Mr.  Justice  Nelson,  with  whom  con- 
curred the  venerable  Chief -Justice  Taney,  and 
Justices  Catron  and  Clifford,  delivered  a  care- 
ful dissenting  opinion,  in  which  he  expressed 
the  conclusion  that  no  civil  war  existed  between 
the  United  States  and  the  States  in  insurrection 
till  it  was  recognized  by  the  act  of  Congress  of 
July  13,  1861;  that  the  President  did  not  pos- 
sess the  power  under  the  Constitution  to  de- 
clare war  or  recognize  its  existence  within  the 
meaning  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  thus  change 
the  country  and  all  its  citizens  from  a  state  of 
peace  to  a  state  of  war;  that  this  power  be- 
longed exclusively  to  Congress;  that  conse- 
quently the  President  had  no  power  to  set  on 
foot  a  blockade  under  the  law  of  nations,  and 
that;  all  captures  before  the  13th  of  July  for 
breach  of  blockade  were  illegal  and  void.  The 
majority  on  the  other  hand  held  that,  in  order 
to  create  a  state  of  public  war,  or  at  any  rate  of 
civil  war,  no  declaration  was  necessary;  that  a 
civil  contest  became  a  war  by  its  accidents — the 
number,  power,  and  organization  of  the  per- 

1  The  Prize  Cases,  2  Black,  635. 


IMPEBIALISM  121 

sons  who  originated  and  carried  it  on ;  that  the 
President,  although  he  had  no  power  to  initiate 
or  declare  a  war,  was  authorized  by  the  acts  of 
1795  and  1807  to  call  forth  the  militia  and  to 
use  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the  United 
States  to  repel  invasion  or  suppress  msurrec- 
tion ;  that  he  was  bound  to  resist  force  by  force, 
and  that,  whether  the  hostile  party  was  a  for- 
eign invader  **  or  States  organized  in  rebel- 
lion," he  was  **  bound  to  accept  the  challenge, 
without  waiting  for  any  special  legislative  au- 
thority." ^*  This  greatest  of  civil  wars,"  de- 
clared the  court,  *  *  was  not  gradually  developed 
by  popular  commotion,  tumultuous  assemblies, 
or  local  unorganized  insurrections.  However 
long  may  have  been  its  previous  conception,  it 
nevertheless  sprung  forth  suddenly  from  the 
parent  brain,  a  Minerva  in  the  full  panopoly  of 
luar.  The  President  was  bound  to  meet  it  in 
the  shape  in  which  it  presented  itself,  without 
waiting  for  Congress  to  baptize  it  with  a 
name.' ' 

But  the  President  did  not  stop  with  organiz- 
ing an  army  and  instituting  a  blockade.  On 
April  27,  the  day  on  which  the  blockade  was  ex- 
tended to  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  he  is- 
sued an  order  to  Gen.  Scott,  authorizing  him 


122  AM  E  EI  CAN  DEVELOPMENT 

personally,  or  through  the  officer  in  command 
at  the  point  where  resistance  should  occur,  to 
suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  at  any  point 
on  or  in  the  vicinity  of  any  military  line  be- 
tween Philadelphia  and  Washington.  The  rea- 
son given  for  this  order  was  the  '*  public 
safety, ' '  and  the  existence  of  '  ^  an  insurrection 
against  the  laws  of  the  United  States. ' '  ^  Un- 
der this  order,  various  persons  were  seized. 
Among  them  was  John  Merryman,  of  Baltimore 
County,  Maryland,  who  was  '^  charged  with 
holding  a  commission  as  lieutenant  in  a  com- 
pany avowing  its  purpose  of  armed  hostility 
against  the  Government,  with  being  in  com- 
munication with  the  rebelSj  and  with  various 
acts  of  treason.  ^ '  ~  Merryman  was  imprisoned 
in  Fort  McHenry,  in  command  of  Gen.  George 
Cadwalader.  In  a  petition  to  Chief-Justice 
Taney,  praying  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  he 
stated  that  he  was  peaceably  in  his  own  house 
with  his  family,  at  two  o'clock  on  the  morning 
of  the  25th  of  May,  when  an  armed  force  com- 
pelled him  to  rise  from  his  bed  and  took  him 
into  custody.  Chief -Justice  Taney  granted  the 
writ,  but,  as  the  military  authorities  refused  to 

1  McPherson  's  Hist,  of  the  Eebellion,  177. 

2  McPherson's  Hist,  of  the  Eebellion,  154. 


IMPERIALISM  123 

produce  their  prisoner,  the  court  could  only 
confess  its  inability  to  hear  the  case  and  em- 
body its  conclusions  in  a  written  opinion. 
Chief -Justice  Taney  stated  that  a  copy  of  the 
order  under  which  the  prisoner  was  arrested 
was  demanded  by  his  counsel  and  refused ;  that 
it  was  not  alleged  in  the  return  to  the  writ  that 
any  specific  act,  constituting  an  offence  against 
the  laws  of  the  United  States,  had  been  charged 
against  the  prisoner  upon  oath;  that  he  ap- 
peared to  have  been  arrested  upon  general 
charges  of  treason  and  rebellion,  without  proof 
and  without  any  specification  of  the  acts  which, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  military  officer,  consti- 
tuted these  crimes ;  and  that  the  officer  refused 
to  obey  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  authorized  by  the  President  to  sus- 
pend it.  Thus,  said  the  Chief -Just  ice,  great 
and  fundamental  laws,  which  Congress  itself 
could  not  suspend,  had  been  disregarded  and 
suspended  by  a  military  order  supported  by 
force  of  arms.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  provides  that  ^  *  the  privilege  of  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  unless 
when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  the  pub- 
lic safety  may  require  it. ' '  Nothing  is  said  as 
to  the  authority  by  which  the  suspension  shall 


124  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

be  made ;  but  the  view  had  been  generally  held 
that  the  power  was  vested  in  Congress.  The 
action  of  the  President  was,  however,  sustained 
by  an  opinion  of  his  Attorney- General  Mr. 
Bates, ^  and  the  opinion  of  the  Chief  Justice 
was  disregarded. 

Thus,  in  fifteen  days  after  the  firing  upon 
Fort  Sumter,  the  office  of  President  of  the 
United  States  became  a  virtual  dictatorship. 
The  powers  which  he  exercised  were  truly  im- 
perial. Not  only  was  he  employing  force  for 
the  suppression  of  insurrection,  but  he  was 
conducting  a  great  civil  war,  capturing  the  ves- 
sels and  property  of  the  citizens  of  foreign 
powers  on  the  high  seas,  and  was  disposing,  as 
the  public  necessities  seemed  to  require,  of  the 
liberties  of  individuals  not  connected  with  the 
military  forces.  In  his  message  to  Congress, 
upon  the  assembling  of  that  body  in  July,  he 
affirmed  that  the  measures  which  he  had 
adopted,  ^  *  whether  strictly  legal  or  not, ' '  were 
**  ventured  upon  under  what  appeared  to  be  a 
popular  demand  and  a  public  necessity,  trust- 
ing then,  as  now,  that  Congress  would  readily 
ratify  them. ' '     The  President  ^s  confidence  was 

1  Opinion  of  Bates,  Attorney-General,  July  5,  1861,  10  Opin- 
ions of  the  Attorneys-General,  74. 


IMPEBIALISM  125 

not  misplaced.  His  course  was  ^  *  approved  and 
applauded/'  one  Senator  indeed,  Howe  of 
Wisconsin,  going  so  far  as  to  declare  that  he 
approved  it  in  exact  proportion  to  the  extent  to 
which  it  was  a  violation  of  the  existing  law.^ 
Not  only  did  Congress  sustain  the  President, 
but  it  was  not  itself  sparing  in  the  assumption 
of  power.  The  confiscation  act  of  August  6, 
1861,^  was  designed  to  render  possible  the 
seizure  and  condemnation  of  all  property  used 
or  intended  to  be  used  in  support  of  insurrec- 
tion and  the  forfeiture  of  slaves  bearing  arms 
or  employed  in  service  or  labor  against  the 
United  States.  The  confiscation  act  of  July  7, 
1862,^  went  much  farther  and  in  order  to  pun- 
ish **  treason  and  rebellion, '^  authorized,  in 
excess  of  previously  recognized  constitutional 
limitations,  the  seizure  and  condemnation  of 
the  property  of  all  persons  who  thereafter 
should  hold  office,  military  or  civil,  under  the 
Confederacy  or  any  of  its  States ;  who,  owning 
property  in  any  loyal  State,  should  give  aid  and 
comfort  to  the  rebellion ;  or  who,  being  engaged 
in  the  rebellion  or  aiding  and  abetting  it,  should 

1  Dunning,  Essays  on  the  Civil  War  and  Reeon&truetion,  18. 

2  12  Stats,  at  Large,  319. 
8  12  »tats.  at  Large,  590. 


126  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

not,  after  public  warning  and  proclamation  by 
the  President,  cease  to  support  it  and  return 
to  bis  allegiance  to  tlie  United  States.  Popu- 
lar opposition  to  the  President's  proclamation 
of  September  24,  1862,  which  was  styled  ^'  a 
necessary  measure  *'  of  war,  declaring  martial 
law,  led  Congress  to  pass  the  act  of  March  3, 
1863,  by  which  the  President  was  expressly  au- 
thorized to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
By  his  proclamation  of  September  15,  1863,  he 
announced  a  general  suspension  of  the  writ. 

Why  was  it  that  the  people,  who  had  been  ac- 
customed to  regard  their  Constitution  with  al- 
most superstitious  veneration,  suddenly  became 
willing  to  consider  its  observance  purely  as  a 
question  of  policy  and  in  individual  instances 
even  to  regard  its  violation  as  a  cause  for  exul- 
tation? Why  were  they  ready  to  dispense  with 
its  guarantees  and  to  live  outside  of  its  pro- 
visions under  what  was  practically  a  Eoman 
dictatorship?  Simply  and  solely  because  of 
the  imperial  and  imperious  demand — general, 
heartfelt  and  insistent— for  the  preservation  of 
the  Union.  This  sentiment  has  by  no  one  been 
more  unequivocally  acknowledged  than  by  Lin- 
coln himself  in  his  famous  letter  to  Horace 


IMPERIALISM  127 

Greeley/  In  this  letter  Lincoln,  while  stating 
that  he  intended  no  modification  of  his  ^^  oft- 
expressed  personal  wish  that  all  men  every- 
where could  be  free, ' '  declared :  ^  ^  I  would  save 
the  Union  .  .  .  The  sooner  the  national  author- 
ity can  be  restored,  the  nearer  the  Union  will  be 
*  the  Union  as  it  was/  If  there  be  those  who 
would  not  save  the  Union  unless  they  could  at 
the  same  time  save  slavery,  I  do  not  agree 
with  them.  If  there  be  those  who  would  not 
save  the  Union  unless  they  could  at  the  same 
time  destroy  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them. 
My  paramount  object  in  this  struggle  is  to  save 
the  Union,  and  is  not  either  to  save  or  to  de- 
stroy slavery."  And  if,  in  order  to  save  the 
Union,  imperial  powers  must  be  assumed,  then 
the  people  would  have  imperialism. 

The  demand  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Union  was  not  confined  to  the  adherents  of  any 
political  party.  It  proceeded  from  national 
men  of  all  parties.  Although  it  became  the 
fashion  to  claim,  after  the  Union  was  restored, 
that  it  was  saved  by  the  Eepublican  party,  yet, 
as  a  learned  colleague  of  mine  has  lately  pointed 
out,^  there  was  effected,  after  1862,  in  which 

1  August  22,  1862. 

2  Dunning,  The  Second  Birth  of  the  Republican  Party,  16 
A.m.  Hist.  Rev.,  56. 


128  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

year  the  results  of  the  elections  were  most  dis- 
couraging to  the  Eepublicans,  a  fusion  of  War 
Democrats  and  Eepublicans  under  the  name  of 
the  Union  party,  the  declared  purpose  of  which 
was  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  Union  at 
all  costs.  This  movement  culminated  in  the 
national  convention  at  Baltimore  in  1864,  rep- 
resenting the  Union  party  and  comprising,  as 
the  chairman  declared,  men  of  all  shades  of  pre- 
vious political  affiliation — *^  primitive  Republi- 
cans and  primitive  Abolitionists  .  .  .  primi- 
tive Democrats  and  primitive  Whigs  .  .  .  pri- 
mitive Americans. ' '  It  was  as  nominees  of  this 
convention  and  as  candidates  of  the  Union 
party  that  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Andrew 
Johnson  ran  and  were  elected. 

We  have  seen  that  Lincoln  expressed  a  wish 
for  the  restoration  of  *^the  Union  as  it  was." 
This  desire  he  continued  to  cherish.  This  was 
shown  by  his  efforts  to  enable  the  loyal  inhabi- 
tants of  Louisiana  and  Arkansas  to  reorganize 
their  State  governments.  He  had  had  enough 
of  strife  and  longed  for  the  restoration  of  tran- 
quillity and  good  f  efeling.  By  his  proclamation 
of  December  8,  1863,  he  offered  to  recognize 
State  governments  set  up  by  loyal  persons 
equal  in  number  to   one-tenth   of  the  voting 


IMPEIilALISM  129 

population  of  1860.  The  policy  of  restora- 
tion was  continued  by  Johnson  on  the  conditions 
(1)  of  the  annulment  or  rescission  of  the  or- 
dinances of  secession,  (2)  of  the  repudiation  of 
the  war  debts,  and  (3)  of  the  ratification  of  the 
Xlllth  Amendment,  which  confirmed  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery.  The  emancipation  of  the  slaves 
had  been  proclaimed  by  Lincoln  in  the  exercise 
of  his  war  powers,  as  commander-in-chief  of 
the  army  and  navy.  It  was  thought  to  be  de- 
sirable that  the  act  should  have  express  con- 
stitutional sanction.  It  was  therefore  provided 
by  the  Xlllth  Amendment  that  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punish- 
ment for  crime,  should  exist  within  the  United 
States  or  in  any  place  subject  to  their  juris- 
diction; and  that  Congress  should  have  power 
to  enforce  this  article  by  appropriate  legis- 
lation. On  December  18,  1865,  the  Amend- 
ment was  officially  proclaimed,  twenty-seven 
States  having  ratified  it,  including  eight  that 
had  seceded.  All  the  seceding  States,  except 
Florida  and  Texas,  had  then  reorganized  their 
governments,  and  the  President  urged  Con- 
gress to  complete  the  work  of  restoration.  But 
other  views  were  coming  to  prevail  in  Congress. 
The  work  of  restoration  had  been  carried  out 
9 


130  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

on  the  principle  that  the  States  were  inde- 
structible; that,  while  they  had  assumed  and 
for  a  time  maintained  an  attitude  of  insur- 
rection towards  the  Union,  they  had  never 
legally  been  out  of  it;  and  that  on  the  termin- 
ation of  hostilities  they  would,  upon  the  accept- 
ance of  certain  conditions,  resume  their  ac- 
customed place  in  the  constitutional  system. 
This  principle  had  been  accepted  as  axiomatic. 
It  pervaded  the  earlier  legislation  of  the  war 
and  inspired  the  course  of  both  Lincoln  and 
Johnson,  although  the  latter  indeed  went  so  far 
as  to  propound  a  theory  of  suspended  anima- 
tion. But  views  far  more  radical  were  coming 
to  prevail.  In  place  of  the  principle  of  State 
indestructibility,  Mr.  Sumner  announced  the 
theory  of  ^'  State  suicide."  Others  preferred 
the  phrase  ^*  forfeited  rights."  But,  by  what- 
ever name  it  might  be  called,  it  meant  that 
the  States  might  be  treated  as  conquered  ter- 
ritory till  Congress  should  see  fit  to  restore  to 
them  their  rights.  This  theory,  though  revolu- 
tionary in  its  nature,  was  suited  to  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  time,  when  statesmen  could  scarcely 
tell  whether  their  conduct  was  guided  by  lust 
of  power  or  by  zeal  for  human  rights.  No 
doubt  both  motives  were  combined  in  the  df* 


IMPEBIALISM  131 

mand  for  **  the  preservation  of  the  results  of 
the  war.''  This  demand  came  to  embrace  the 
elective  franchise  for  the  freedmen.  The  Civil 
Eights  Bill,  although  vetoed  by  Johnson,  was 
passed  over  his  veto,  and  was  embodied  in  the 
XlVth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which 
was  proposed  to  the  States  in  1866.  The  South- 
ern States  refused  to  ratify  it.  Moreover,  for 
the  purpose  of  controlling  the  liberated  slaves, 
they  passed  vagrancy  and  apprenticeship  laws, 
which  were  regarded  and  denounced  at  the 
North  as  measures  designed  to  nullify  the  ef- 
fects of  emancipation  and  restore  the  freedmen 
virtually  to  a  condition  of  servitude.^ 

Proceeding  then,  in  the  midst  of  strong  pub- 
lic feeling,  upon  the  conquered-province  theory, 
Congress  inaugurated  the  imperialistic  policy 
of  military  **  reconstruction."  Under  the  act 
of  March  2,  and  the  supplemental  acts  of  March 
23  and  July  19,  1867,"  the  Southern  States  were 
divided  into  five  districts  and  placed  under 
military  authority;  the  blacks  were  enfran- 
chised and  tests  applied  by  which  the  whites 

1  These  laws  are  severely  attacked  by  Blaine,  Thirty  Years 
of  Congress,  II,  93-103;  they  are  ably  defended  by  Herbert, 
Why  the  Solid  South?  or,  Eeconstruction  and  its  Results,  31-36. 

2  14  Stats,  at  Large,  428 ;  15  id.,  2,  14. 


132  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

were  disfranchised;  and,  in  place  of  the  re- 
stored governments,  there  were  set  up  in  this 
way  new  governments,  by  which  the  XlVth 
Amendment  was  ratified.  An  attempt  to  obtain 
a  decision  by  the  Supreme  Court  on  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  reconstruction  laws  was 
frustrated  by  the  repeal  by  Congress  of  the 
statute  under  which  the  appeal  was  taken/ 
The  XlVth  Amendment  was  proclaimed  in 
1868.  It  declared  that  all  persons,  born  or  na- 
turalized in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  thereof,  were  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  of  the  State  wherein  they 
resided;  that  no  State  should  make  or  enforce 
any  law  which  should  **  abridge  the  privileges 
or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States" ; 
and  that  no  State  should  *^  deprive  any  person 
of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process 
of  law,  or  deny  to  any  person,  within  its  juris- 
diction, the  equal  protection  of  the  laws."  If 
the  right  to  vote  was  denied  or  abridged,  ex- 
cept for  participation  in  rebellion  or  other 
crime,  the  basis  of  representation  in  such  State 

1  Ex  parte  McCardle,  7  Wallace,  506.  The  repealing  act 
was  passed,  was  vetoed  by  the  President,  and  weis  re-passed 
over  his  veto,  after  the  case  was  argued  on  the  merits  and 
taken  under  advisement,  but  before  the  judges  had  met  in  con- 
ference upon  the  decision  proper  to  be  made. 


IMPERIALISM  133 

was  to  be  proportionately  diminished.  The 
validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States 
was  affirmed,  and  the  payment  of  any  claim  for 
the  loss  or  emancipation  of  slaves  was  for- 
bidden. By  the  XVth  Amendment,  which  was 
proposed  in  1869,  and  proclaimed  in  1870,  it 
was  provided  that  the  right  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  to  vote  should  not  be  '^  denied  or 
abridged  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any  State, 
on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition 
of  servitude." 

These  amendments,  which  Congress  was  em- 
powered to  enforce  by  appropriate  legislation, 
were  designed  to  afford  to  the  freedmen  full 
political  and  civil  rights  throughout  the  United 
States.  It  soon  became  evident,  however,  that 
the  political  supremacy  of  the  negro  could  be 
preserved  only  by  military  force.  The  freed- 
men, necessarily  without  knowledge  of  or  ex- 
perience in  the  exercise  of  political  power, 
often  exhibited  little  inclination  to  exercise  their 
new  political  rights,  even  when  exhorted  and 
encouraged  by  their  political  leaders  so  to  do. 
For  ten  years  the  struggle  went  on,  but  the 
opposition  to  negro  rule,  sullen  or  active  ac- 
cording to  circumstances,  continued,  and  in  the 
end  the  attempt  to  maintain  the  political  power 


134  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

of  the  blacks  was  abandoned,  its  end  being  has- 
tened by  the  striking  corruption  and  profligacy 
of  some  of  the  so-called  reconstruction  gov- 
ernments. 

Nor  did  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  when  called  upon  to  construe  the  con- 
stitutional amendments,  go  to  the  lengths  which 
perhaps  were  originally  expected.  Judicial 
tribunals  naturally  lean  towards  conservatism ; 
that  the  Supreme  Court  shares  this  inclina- 
tion is  shown  by  its  decisions  in  the  Slaughter 
House  cases  and  in  cases  arising  under  the  Civil 
Eights  Act. 

But  the  occasional  conservatism  of  judicial 
utterances  could  hardly  mislead  us  into  sup- 
posing that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  could  ever  again  revert  to  the  position 
which  it  held  prior  to  the  civil  war.  The  as- 
sumption, by  President  and  by  Congress,  of  im- 
perial powers  during  that  great  conflict,  the 
forcible  assertion  of  national  and  even  party 
supremacy  by  the  central  government  after  its 
close,  and  the  embodiment  of  these  claims  of  au- 
thority in  acts  of  legislation  and  constitutional 
amendments,  had  produced  changes  which 
could  not  be  undone  and  which  there  was  no 
general    desire   to   undo.     While   the   people 


lUFKRlALlSM  135 

grew  weary  of  and  brought  to  an  end  what 
they  conceived  to  be  excesses  of  power,  they  felt 
no  disposition  to  relinquish  the  fundamental 
claims  of  authority  through  the  exercise  of 
which  they  had  preserved  the  national  unity. 
On  the  contrary,  with  the  national  develop- 
ment, new  needs  arose  for  the  exercise  of  na- 
tional authority;  new  directions  for  the  exer- 
cise of  national  power  were  revealed;  social 
life,  as  well  as  political,  became  more  complex. 
Especially  was  this  the  case  with  regard  to 
commerce.  In  the  development  of  commerce 
between  the  States  and  with  foreign  nations, 
conditions  arose  and  continued  to  arise  with 
which  the  State  governments  were  powerless  to 
deal.  In  consequence,  there  was  passed  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Act,  which  merely  fur- 
nished the  foundation  for  a  series  of  measures 
which  have  brought  commerce  more  and  more 
under  the  control  of  the  federal  government. 
And  the  end  is  not  yet.  To  separate  and  dis- 
tinguish infrastate  trade  from  interstate  trade 
becomes  more  and  more  difficult,  while  the  ten- 
dency to  solve  the  difficulty  by  bringing  the 
former  within  the  sphere  of  the  latter  becomes 
more  and  more  apparent.  He  would  be  a  rash 
man,  who  should  assume  to  prophesy  the  even- 


J36  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

tual  limits  by  which  the  national  control  over 
commerce  is  to  be  stayed.  Nor  is  the  fact  to 
be  lost  sight  of  that  in  the  development  of  in- 
tercourse, good  neighborhood  and  co-operation 
among  nations  the  treaty-making  power  is 
steadily  being  applied  to  an  increasing  number 
of  subjects,  and  that  the  treaty-making  power 
is  not  generally  subject  to  the  limitations  by 
which  the  power  of  legislation  is  circum- 
scribed. 

As  an  illustration  of  how  the  exercise  of  the 
power  to  regulate  intercourse  among  the  States 
may  be  capable  of  interesting  development,  we 
may  refer  to  the  case  of  the  Chicago  Strike  in 
1894.  In  June  of  that  year  the  workmen  em- 
ployed in  the  shops  of  Pullman's  Palace  Car 
Company  struck  against  a  reduction  of  wages 
and,  the  company  having  refused  to  refer  the 
dispute  to  arbitration,  the  President  of  the 
American  Eailway  Union,  representing  a  large 
number  of  organized  railway  workers,  ordered 
a  sympathetic  boycott  of  Pullman  cars.  Wide- 
spread disorders  ensued,  and  traffic  was  inter- 
fered with  by  violent  means.  Injunctions 
against  the  rioters  were  issued  by  the  federal 
courts,  and  the  leader  of  the  American  Rail- 
way Union  was  arrested.     President  Cleveland, 


IMPERIALISM  137 

on  the  first  of  July,  gave  orders  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  mails  and  of  interstate  commerce 
by  regular  troops;  and  a  few  days  later,  riot- 
ing at  Chicago  having  become  general  and 
many  cars  having  been  burned  and  damaged, 
he  issued  a  proclamation  calling  on  the  mobs  to 
disperse,  on  pain  of  being  dealt  with  as  public 
enemies.  Order  was  immediately  re-established 
in  Chicago,  and  uninterrupted  traffic  resumed 
on  the  railways  at  that  point  and  other  places. 
President  Cleveland's  action  in  sending  troops 
to  the  scene  of  disturbances,  without  awaiting  a 
requisition  of  the  State  authorities,  was  pro- 
tested against  by  the  governor  of  Illinois  and 
was  a  subject  of  much  heated  discussion ;  but  it 
was  at  the  time  approved  with  little  opposition 
by  both  houses  of  Congress,  as  well  as  by  the 
public,  and  it  afterwards  received  the  sanction 
of  the  Supreme  Court. 

The  tendency,  which  has  been  so  signally 
manifested  since  1860,  to  exercise  imperial 
powers  in  domestic  aifairs,  has  been  no  less 
strikingly  exhibited  in  foreign  affairs. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine,  if  considered  with  re- 
ference to  the  responsibilities  which  it  poten- 
tially involved,  was  always  imperial  in  its  pro- 
portions.    One  cannot  fail,  however,  to  note 


138  AMEBIC  AN  DEVELOPMENT 

the  fact  that,  in  its  tone  and  its  tendencies,  it 
has  undergone  a  marked  transformation.  This 
tendency  towards  its  transformation  may  first 
be  seen  in  the  special  message  of  President 
Polk  to  Congress  of  April  29,  1848,  in  relation 
to  Yucatan.  An  Indian  outbreak  having  oc- 
curred in  that  country,  the  authorities  offered 
to  transfer  ^^  the  dominion  and  sovereignty  '' 
to  the  United  States,  and  at  the  same  time  made 
a  similar  offer  to  Great  Britain  and  Spain. 
President  Polk  recommended  the  occupation  of 
the  territory  by  the  United  States,  and,  in  so 
doing,  declared  that  '^  we  could  not  consent  to 
a  transfer  of  this  '  dominion  and  sovereignty  ' 
to  either  Spain,  Great  Britain,  or  any  other 
power. ' '  This  pronouncement  went  beyond  the 
declaration  of  President  Monroe,  which  as- 
serted the  right  of  American  States,  whose  in- 
dependence the  United  States  had  acknowl- 
edged, to  dispose  of  themselves  as  they  saw 
fit,  and  was  directed  against  the  interposition 
of  European  powers  to  control  their  destiny 
against  their  will.  John  Quincy  Adams,  by 
whom  the  declaration  was  formulated,  ex- 
pressed the  idea  in  his  diary  thus : 

*'  Considering  the  South  Americans  as  inde- 
pendent nations,  they  themselves,  and  no  other 


IMPERIALISM  139 

nation,  had  the  right  to  dispose  of  their  condi- 
tion. We  have  no  right  to  dispose  of  them, 
either  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  other  na- 
tions. Neither  have  any  other  nations  the  right 
of  disposing  of  them  without  their  consent.'' 

The  declaration  of  President  Polk  would  for- 
bid the  acquisition  of  dominion  by  a  European 
power,  even  by  voluntary  transfer  or  cession; 
but,  while  his  declaration  rested  upon  intelli- 
gible and  reasonable  grounds  and  was  expressly 
confined  to  North  America,  it  represented  a 
step  forward  in  political  conceptions. 

A  stage  far  in  advance  was  reached  in  the 
utterances  of  Mr.  Olney,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
and  of  President  Cleveland,  in  the  case  of  the 
Venezuelan  boundary.  While  affirming  that  the 
particular  object  of  the  United  States  in  that 
case  was  to  prevent  an  American  power  from 
being  forcibly  deprived  by  a  European  power 
of  its  independence — an  object  which  undoubt- 
edly comes  within  the  spirit  of  President 
Monroe's  declaration  —  Mr.  Olney  boldly  de- 
clared: '*  To-day  the  United  States  is  practi- 
cally sovereign  on  this  continent  and  its  fiat  is 
law  upon  the  subjects  to  which  it  confines  its 
interposition."  Surely  it  must  be  admitted 
that  no  declaration  more  imperialistic  was  ever 


140  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

made  by  an  American  statesman;  nor  is  its 
imperialistic  lustre  dimmed  by  the  explanation, 
which  Mr.  Olney  proceeds  to  make,  that  this 
paramount  position  of  the  United  States  on  the 
American  continent  is  due  not  simply  to  its 
high  character,  or  to  the  fact  that  wisdom  and 
justice  and  equity  are  its  invariable  character- 
istics, but  also  to  the  circumstance  that  '  ^  its  in- 
finite resources  combined  with  its  isolated  posi- 
tion render  it  master  of  the  situation  and  prac- 
tically invulnerable  as  against  any  or  all  other 
powers,'^  Mr.  Olney  is  a  statesman  of  conser- 
vative tendencies,  and  an  advocate  of  the  reign 
of  law.  He  negotiated  with  Great  Britain  a  re- 
markable treaty  of  arbitration,  which  the 
Senate,  apparently  on  account  of  the  compre- 
hensiveness of  its  provisions,  failed  to  approve. 
His  attitude  of  restraint  towards  intervention 
in  Cuba  was  well  illustrated  by  the  story  that, 
when  a  certain  naval  officer  remarked  to  him, 
**  Mr.  Secretary,  I'd  like  to  bring  you  a  box  of 
cigars  from  Havana,*'  he  promptly  retorted, 
**  I  don't  smoke."  When  the  contemplation  of 
our  power  excites  in  a  statesman  of  such 
solid  character  and  abstemious  habits  extra- 
ordinary exuberance  of  speech,  must  it  not 
be  confessed  that  there  is  a  certain  exuber- 


IMPEBIALISM  141 

ance  in  our  blood?  President  Cleveland,  in 
turn,  in  recommending  to  Congress  the  cre- 
ation of  a  commission  to  investigate  and  re- 
port upon  the  boundary  question,  expressed  the 
opinion  that  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  resist  by  every  means  in  its  power,  as 
a  wilful  aggression  upon  its  rights  and  inter- 
ests, the  appropriation  by  Great  Britain  of  any 
lands  or  the  exercise  by  her  of  governmental 
jurisdiction  over  any  territory  which  **  we  '' 
should  decide  to  belong  to  Venezuela.  So  far 
as  this  language  seemed  to  imply  that  the 
United  States  possessed  the  right  by  itself  au- 
thoritatively to  fix  the  boundary  between  two 
other  independent  nations,  it  probably  went  be- 
yond President  Cleveland's  intention;  for,  in 
another  part  of  his  message,  he  stated  that  any 
adjustment  of  the  boundary  into  which  Vene- 
zuela might  enter  of  her  own  free  will  could  not 
be  objected  to  by  the  United  States — a  conces- 
sion potentially  involving  a  very  substantial 
abatement  from  the  claim  that  the  United 
States  was  sovereign  and  its  fiat  law  on  the 
American  continents. 

A  new  and  still  later  application  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  is  that  which  was  made  by 
President    Roosevelt    in    the    case    of    Santo 


142  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Domingo.  February  15, 1905,  he  transmitted  to 
tlie  Senate  a  treaty  under  which  the  United 
States  agreed  to  undertake  the  adjustment  of 
all  Dominican  debts,  domestic  and  foreign,  and 
to  that  end  to  take  charge  of  and  administer 
the  custom  houses.  In  the  message  accompany- 
ing the  treaty,  President  Roosevelt  stated  that 
conditions  in  Santo  Domingo  had  for  many 
years  been  growing  steadily  worse,  that  there 
had  been  many  disturbances  and  revolutions, 
and  that  debts  had  been  contracted  beyond  the 
power  of  the  republic  to  pay.  Those  who  pro- 
fited by  the  Monroe  Doctrine  must,  he  affirmed, 
accept  certain  responsibilities  along  with  the 
rights  which  it  conferred ;  and  the  justification 
for  assuming  the  responsibility  proposed  in  the 
present  instance  was  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  it  was  incompatible  with  international 
equity  for  the  United  States  to  refuse  to  allow 
other  powers  to  take  the  only  means  at  their 
disposal  of  satisfying  the  claims  of  their  citi- 
zens and  yet  to  refuse  itself  to  take  any  such 
steps.  Under  the  Monroe  Doctrine  the  United 
States  could  not,  said  President  Roosevelt,  see 
any  European  power  *^  seize  and  permanently 
occupy  ' '  the  territory  of  an  American  republic, 
and  yet  such  seizure  might  eventually  offer  the 


IMPEBIALISM  143 

only  way  in  whicli  sncli  a  power  could  collect 
any  debts,  unless  the  United  States  should  in- 
terfere. In  these  circumstances  the  United 
States  should,  he  maintained,  take  charge  of 
the  custom-houses.  The  treaty  was  not  ap- 
proved by  the  Senate ;  but  a  later  treaty,  signed 
February  8,  1907,  carrying  out  the  principal 
object  on  the  basis  of  an  actual  adjustment  with 
creditors  meanwhile  accomplished,  was  duly 
ratified,  and  put  into  effect,  and  under  its  pro- 
visions the  Dominican  customs  are  now  admin- 
istered. 

A  transformation  similar  to  that  which  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  has  undergone  may  be  ob- 
served in  the  case  of  the  interoceanic  canal. 
Originally,  the  canal  was  conceived  of  as  a  high- 
way open  to  all  nations  and  neutralized  by  the 
action  of  all ;  and  it  was  not  imagined  that  the 
United  States  had  the  constitutional  power 
either  to  construct  such '  a  way  by  its  own 
means  or  to  charter  a  company  for  that  pur- 
pose. On  June  21,  1849,  Elijah  Hise  concluded 
a  treaty  with  Nicaragua  granting  to  the  United 
States  the  **  exclusive  right  and  privilege  ''  to 
build  an  interoceanic  way  through  that  country. 
By  this  treaty  it  was  provided  (Art.  Ill)  that, 
if  the  United  States  should  not  construct  the 


144  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

work,  then  either  the  President  or  Congress 
should  issue  a  charter  to  someone  for  the  pur- 
pose. In  the  debates  in  the  Senate,  in  March 
1853,  on  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  Mr.  Clay- 
ton, in  adverting  to  the  fact  that  the  Hise  treaty 
was  never  submitted  to  that  body,  declared  that 
he  had  never  yet  met  with  any  man  of  any 
party,  who  supposed  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  had  the  power  to  make  improve- 
ments outside  of  the  United  States  and  their  ter- 
ritories. He  repeatedly  recurred  to  the  subject, 
and  reiterated  his  belief  that  there  was  not  a 
man  in  the  Senate  who  would  contend  that  the 
United  States  could  either  build  the  canal  or 
grant  an  act  of  incorporation  for  the  purpose. 
Not  a  Senator  on  either  side  of  the  chamber,  in 
the  course  of  the  long  running  debates,  rose  to 
question  Clayton's  statement.  No  one  went 
further  than  to  contend  that  the  canal,  when 
built,  should  be  exclusively  protected  by  the 
United  States  without  entering  into  an  agree- 
ment with  any  other  power;  and  there  were 
few  who  went  so  far  as  this.  After  the  civil 
war  the  tone  of  governmental  and  public  ut- 
terances changed.  The  demand  for  a  canal  un- 
der exclusive  American  control  became  general. 
In  time  an  act  of  incorporation  was  granted  by 


IMPEBIALISM  145 

Congress  to  a  construction  company.    Even- 
tually, definite  steps  were  taken  by  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  to  build  the  canal 
either  by  its  own  means  or  through  a  chartered 
company.     Soon  afterwards  a  strip  of  territory 
was  acquired  by  treaty  from  the  new  Republic 
of  Panama,  against  whose  recognition  the  gov- 
ernment of  Colombia,  the  prior  sovereign,  had 
protested.    With  reference  to  this  transaction, 
Colonel  Roosevelt  is  reported  lately  to  have 
said  that  President  Roosevelt  **took''  the  ter- 
ritory,^ a  phrase  which,  even  if  it  does  not  im- 
ply the  exercise  of  a  power  which  Mr.  Olney 
would  call  '*  sovereign,'*  sounds  somewhat  im- 
perialistic.    The  declaration  has  at  any  rate 
had  the  effect  of  reviving  past  discussions.    In 
President  Roosevelt's  annual  message  of  De- 
cember 7, 1903,  it  was  explained  that  the  detach- 
ment of  the  territory  from  Colombia  was  not 
unconnected  with  his  vigorous  maintenance  of 
peace  and  good  order  along  the  transit  route 

1  Colonel  Roosevelt,  March  23,  1911,  in  an  address  at  the 
University  of  California,  as  quoted  in  the  press,  said;  ^'  I  am 
interested  in  the  Panama  Canal  because  I  started  it.  If  I  had 
followed  traditional,  conservative  methods  I  would  have  sub- 
mitted a  dignified  state  paper  of  probably  two  hundred  pages 
to  Congress,  and  the  debate  on  it  would  have  been  going  on 
yet;  but  I  took  the  Canal  Zone,  and  let  Congress  debate,  and 
while  the  debate  goes  on,  the  canal  does  also,'' 

10 


146  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

under  Article  XXXV  of  the  treaty  with  New 
Granada  of  1846 ;  and  we  were  further  assured 
by  his  special  message  of  January  4,  1904,  and 
had  rested  in  the  assurance,  that  the  same  re- 
sult might  be  ascribed  to  his  exceptional  but 
justifiable  recognition  and  protection  of  the  in- 
dependence of  the  Eepublic  of  Panama,  where- 
by Article  XXXV,  which  an  experienced  di- 
plomatist of  legal  antecedents  described  with 
technical  accuracy  as  a  *  *  covenant  running  with 
the  land,"  proved  itself  to  be  an  agile  as  well 
as  faithful  attendant.  Probably  Colonel  Eoose- 
velt,  in  using  the  word  *  *  took, ' '  intended  merely 
to  emphasize  the  fact  that  as  President  he  as- 
sumed the  responsibility  of  acting  in  the  mat- 
ter without  first  consulting  Congress/  But, 
the  significant  fact  is  that,  the  territory  having 
been  acquired,  the  United  States  promptly  en- 
tered upon  the  building  of  the  canal  by  its  own 
means,  and  is  now  taking  effectual  measures  to 
fortify  it. 

1  In  T7ie  OutlooTc  of  October  6,  1911,  Colonel  Boosevelt  recurs 
to  the  message  of  1903  and  1904,  and  defends  his  action  as 
President  substantially  in  this  sense. 


LECTUEE  lY 

Expansion 

In  1898  there  was  witnessed  in  the  United 
States  a  spectacle  not  uncommon  in  times  of 
exceptional  activity,  when  the  public  mind  is 
stirred  by  war  or  other  disturbing  incidents.  At 
such  times  it  usually  happens  that  propensities 
and  tendencies  that  have  long  been  at  work  are 
revealed  to  the  popular  comprehension  with  ex- 
ceptional clearness.  To  many  to  whom  the 
light  has  just  come  it  seems  as  if  a  new  era  had 
been  entered  upon.  Thus  it  was  that  in  1898 
our  begoggled  seers  began  to  run  about  and 
proclaim  the  discovery  that  the  United  States 
had  become  a  ^^  World  Power.''  The  people 
of  the  United  States  had  indeed  founded  upon 
the  wreck  of  the  old  colonial  system  a  great 
republic;  they  had  established  a  constitution 
which  marked  an  epoch  in  governmental  de- 
velopment ;  they  had  laid  the  foundations  of  the 
system  of  neutrality;  they  had  materially  con- 
tributed to  the  establishment  of  the  freedom 
of  the  seas,  had  announced  the  doctrine  of  ex- 

147 


•/f 


148  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

patriation  and  had  proclaimed  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine. They  had  penetrated  with  their  trade 
the  most  distant  parts  of  the  globe  and  had  been 
the  chief  instrument  in  opening  one  of  the  great 
empires  of  the  Far  East  to  the  commerce  and 
residence  of  foreigners.  Nevertheless,  we  were 
assured  not  only  that  we  had  become  a  *  *  World 
Power  ''  but  that  we  had  become  so  by  reason 
of  a  rapid  victory  over  a  European  power, 
weak  in  military  and  naval  resources,  as  the 
result  of  which  we  had  acquired  some  distant 
islands.  We  were  advised  that  we  had  entered 
upon  a  policy  of  **  expansion  '';  and  this  assur- 
ance was  given  as  if  expansion  were  an  entirely 
new  thing  in  our  history,  and  involved  ques- 
tions which  we  had  never  before  been  obliged 
to  consider. 

It  is  true  that  the  expansion  of  1898  involved, 
so  far  as  concerns  the  Philippine  Islands,  the 
taking  of  a  step  geographically  in  advance  of 
any  that  had  been  taken  before;  but  so  far 
as  concerns  the  acquisition  of  new  territory  we 
were  merely  following  a  habit  which  had  char-^ 
acterized  our  entire  national  existence. 

We  have  indeed  seldom  confessed  that  we  de- 
sired new  territory;  our  general  attitude  has 
rather  been  that  of  the  Washington  correspon- 


EXPANSION  149 

dent  of  a  leading  New  York  newspaper  who  re- 
cently declared,  ^*  We  do  not  want  more  terri- 
tory any  more  than  we  want  fish  bones  in  our 
coffee/'  But  in  spite  of  our  distaste  for  this 
uncanny  admixture  of  foreign  and  domestic 
products,  the  fish  bones  have  continued  to  ap- 
pear in  our  cups  and  we  have  continued  to  gulp 
them  down  without  any  specially  unseemly 
grimaces. 

To  the  founders  of  the  American  Eepublic, 
the  question  of  territorial  expansion  did  not 
present  itself  as  a  matter  of  theoretical  specu- 
lation or  even  of  choice.  There  was  not  a  single 
European  power  having  possessions  in  America 
that  did  not  lay  claim  to  more  territory  than  it 
effectively  occupied,  nor  was  there  a  single  one 
whose  claims  were  not  contested  by  some  other 
power.  With  the  contests  for  territory  there 
were  interwoven  the  struggles  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  colonial  monopolies  in  commerce 
and  in  navigation.  The  Spaniards  and  the 
Portuguese,  the  English  and  the  French,  the 
Swedes  and  the  Dutch,  contended  with  one  an- 
other in  Europe  as  well  as  in  America  for  em- 
pire on  the  American  continents.  Their  colon- 
ists knew  no  rules  of  life  but  that  of  conflict, 
and  they  regarded  the  extension  of  their  boun- 


150  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

daries  as  a  measure  of  self-defense  rather  than 
of  aggression. 

In  the  plan  of  a  treaty  which  the  Committee 
of  Secret  Correspondence  of  the  Continental 
Congress  prepared  in  the  early  days  of  the 
American  revolution  for  submission  to  France, 
it  was  expressly  declared  that  the  most  Chris- 
tian king  should  never  invade  nor  attempt  to 
possess  himself  of  any  of  the  countries  on  the 
continent  of  North  America,  either  to  the  north 
or  to  the  south  of  the  United  States,  nor  of  any 
islands  lying  near  that  continent,  except  such 
as  he  might  take  from  Great  Britain  in  the 
West  Indies ;  but  that,  with  this  exception,  the 
sole  and  perpetual  possession  of  the  countries 
and  islands  belonging  to  the  British  Crown 
should  be  reserved  to  the  United  States.  In 
the  Treaty  of  Alliance  which  was  concluded 
with  France  on  February  6,  1778,  this  principle 
was  carefully  preserved.  While  the  United 
States  guaranteed  to  France  the  latter 's  exist- 
ing possessions  in  America  as  well  as  any  which 
she  might  acquire  by  the  future  treaty  of  peace, 
it  was  expressly  stipulated  that  the  United 
States,  in  the  event  of  seizing  the  remaining 
British  possessions  in  North  America  or  the 
Bermuda  Islands,  should  be  permitted  to  bring 


EXPANSION  X51 

them  into  the  Confederacy  or  to  hold  them  as 
*'  dependencies.'^  The  King  of  France  re- 
nounced them  forever,  reserving  only  the  right 
to  capture  and  hold  any  British  Islands  in  or 
near  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

It  was  altogether  in  harmony  with  these 
stipulations  that  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
(Article  VI)  provided:  **  Canada  acceding  to 
this  Confederation,  and  joining  in  the  meas- 
ures of  the  United  States,  shall  be  admitted 
into  and  entitled  to  all  the  advantages  of  this 
Union/'  No  other  colony  was  to  be  so  ad- 
mitted without  the  consent  of  nine  States ;  and 
unless  they  consented,  the  colony,  if  seized,  was 
to  remain  in  a  **  dependent  "  position.  When 
the  Eevolution  came  to  an  end,  Canada  and  the 
British  islands  remained  in  British  control. 
But  the  boundaries  accorded  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  were  far  more 
generous  than  the  diplomatists  of  Europe  had 
expected  or  than  British  statesmen  had  been  ac- 
customed to  contemplate.  Their  northern  ex- 
tension may  be  seen  on  the  map  of  the  United 
States  today  by  following  the  long  winding  line 
from  Passamaquoddy  Bay  to  the  Lake  of  the 
Woods.  On  the  west,  the  Mississippi  Eiver 
formed  the  frontier  as  far  south  as  the  thirty- 


152  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

first  parallel  of  north  latitude.  From  that 
point  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  bordered  upon  the  Spanish  pos- 
sessions, which  then  embraced  both  East 
Florida  and  West  Florida. 

With  the  independence  of  the  United  States 
a  new  force  entered  into  the  territorial  conflicts 
in  America,  but  it  did  not  alter  their  essential 
character.  It  was  in  order  to  obtain  relief 
from  burdensome  conditions  that  the  United 
States  acquired  Louisiana.  Questions  of  dis- 
puted boundary  and  commercial  restriction 
vexed  and  hampered  the  new  member  of  the 
family  of  nations.  Of  all  the  commercial  re- 
strictions, that  which  promised  to  be  least  en- 
durable was  the  claim  of  Spain  as  the  proprie- 
tor of  the  banks  to  the  exclusive  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  Eiver.  The  claim  of  exclusion 
which  Spain  asserted  was  not  novel;  the  prin- 
ciple had  come  to  be  generally  accepted  in 
Europe.  But  it  was  conceived  to  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  doctrines  of  natural  right  which 
found  their  expression  in  the  revolution  in 
America  and  the  revolution  in  France,  and  the 
United  States  were  unwilling  to  submit  to  it. 
To  the  inhabitants  of  the  west  the  Mississippi 
Eiver  was,  as  Madison  once  declared,  **  the 


EXPANSION  153 

Hudson,  Delaware,  Potomac  and  all  the  navig- 
able rivers  of  the  Atlantic  States  formed  into 
one  stream/' 

During  the  dark  hours  of  the  American  re- 
volution the  Continental  Congress  seemed  at 
one  time  to  be  ready  to  yield  to  Spain  in  return 
for  her  alliance  her  exclusive  claims,  but  hap- 
pily this  was  not  done.  In  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
the  United  States,  acting  on  the  supposition 
that  the  Mississippi  was  navigable  in  British 
territory,  agreed  that  its  navigation  should  for- 
ever remain  free  and  open  to  British  subjects ; 
but,  south  of  the  thirty-first  parallel  of  north 
latitude,  this  freedom  of  navigation  it  was  not 
within  the  power  of  the  United  States  to  as- 
sure. Spain  continued  to  maintain  her  exclu- 
sive claims.  The  opposition  to  them  in  the 
United  States  grew  stronger  and  louder  till  at 
length  Spain  on  October  27,  1795,  encompassed 
by  many  perils  in  her  foreign  relations,  con- 
ceded to  the  United  States  the  free  navigation 
of  the  river,  together  with  the  privilege  of  de- 
positing merchandise  at  New  Orleans  and  then 
exporting  it  without  payment  of  duty.  The 
inestimable  benefit  of  this  arrangement  was 
daily  growing  more  manifest  when,  early  in 
1801,  rumors  began  to  prevail  that  Spain  had 


154  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

ceded  both  Louisiana  and  the  Floridas  to 
France.  As  a  neighbor  Spain,  on  account  of 
the  internal  weakness  of  her  government  and 
the  consequent  unaggressiveness  of  her  foreign 
policy,  was  not  feared,  but  apprehension  had 
from  the  first  been  exhibited  by  the  United 
States  as  to  the  possibility  of  being  hemmed  in 
by  colonies  of  England  and  France.  If  the 
rumor  of  cession  should  prove  to  be  true,  the 
arrangement  with  Spain  for  the  free  naviga- 
tion of  the  Mississippi  and  the  right  of  entrepot 
was  threatened  with  extinction.  The  feeling 
which  these  apprehensions  excited  was  vividly 
expressed  by  Jefferson  in  a  letter  which  he 
wrote  as  President  to  Eobert  R.  Livingston, 
then  minister  of  the  United  States  at  Paris,^  in 
which  he  declared  that  the  cession  of  Louisiana 
and  the  Floridas  by  Spain  to  France  would  com- 
pletely reverse  all  the  political  relations  of  the 
United  States  and  form  a  new  epoch  in  their 
political  course.  There  was,  he  affirmed,  on 
the  globe  one  single  spot  the  possessor  of  which 
was  *'  our  natural  and  habitual  enemy,''  and 
that  was  **  New  Orleans,"  through  which  the 
produce  of  three-eights  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  must  pass  to  market,  a  territory 

1  April  18,  1802. 


EXPANSION  155 

the  fertility  of  which  would  ere  long  yield  more 
than  half  of  their  entire  produce  and  contain 
more  than  half  of  their  inhabitants.  The 
pacific  dispositions  of  Spain  and  her  feeble 
state  would,  he  said,  induce  her  to  increase  the 
facilities  of  the  United  States,  but  it  could  not 
be  so  in  the  hands  of  France  with  her  impetuos- 
ity, energy  and  restlessness;  and  Jefferson, 
who,  although  peaceful  himself,  well  under- 
stood the  character  and  temper  of  his  country- 
men, declared  that  the  American  people  though 
quiet,  peace  loving,  and  pursuing  wealth,  were 
high  minded,  despising  wealth  in  competition 
with  insult  or  injury,  and  as  enterprising  and 
energetic  as  any  nation  on  earth. 

The  treaty  by  which  Spain  ceded  Louisiana  to 
France  was  signed  at  San  Idlef  onso  on  October 
1,  1800,  but  it  was  not  published;  in  fact,  even 
its  existence  was  denied.  It  did  not  embrace 
the  Floridas  but  included  the  whole  of  the  vast 
domain  then  known  as  Louisiana,  a  domain  out 
of  which  have  since  been  carved  the  States  of 
Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  Iowa,  Minne- 
sota, Kansas,  Nebraska,  South  Dakota,  North 
Dakota,  and  Montana,  parts  of  the  States  of 
Colorado,  "Wyoming,  and  Oklahoma,  and  what 
remains    of   the   Indian    Territory.     The  ad- 


156  AMEEICAN  DEVELOFMENT 

ministration  at  Washington,  though  in  the  dark 
as  to  what  had  actually  taken  place,  felt  the 
necessity  of  action;  it  desired,  if  possible,  to 
prevent  the  transfer  of  the  territory,  or,  if  this 
could  not  be  accomplished,  to  obtain  from 
France  the  Floridas  if  they  were  included  in 
the  cession, — or  at  least  West  Florida, — so  as 
to  give  to  the  United  States  a  continuous 
stretch  of  territory  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods 
to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the 
Mississippi. 

Early  in  1802  a  report  reached  Washington 
that  the  Spanish  intendant  at  New  Orleans  had 
suspended  the  right  of  deposit.  It  was  soon 
learned  that  the  suspension  was  not  author- 
ized by  the  Spanish  government,  but  the  act 
of  the  intendant  gave  rise  to  energetic  discus- 
sions in  Congress.  A  resolution  was  adopted 
by  the  House  declaring  that  the  stipulated 
rights  of  the  United  States  in  the  Mississippi 
would  be  inviolably  maintained,  while  a  reso- 
lution was  offered  in  the  Senate  to  authorize 
the  President  to  take  forcible  possession  of 
such  places  as  might  be  necessary  to  secure 
their  full  enjoyment.  The  state  of  public  feel- 
ing was  such  that  every  branch  of  the  govern- 
ment felt  obliged  to  take  measures  not  only 


EXPANSION  157 

to  preserve  existing  rights,  but  also,  if  pos- 
sible, to  enlarge  and  safeguard  tbem.  With 
this  end  in  view,  James  Monroe  was  joined 
with  Livingston  in  an  extraordinary  commis- 
sion to  treat  with  France,  and  with  Charles 
Pinckney  in  a  like  commission  to  treat,  if  neces- 
sary, with  Spain.  The  specific  objects  of  the 
mission,  as  defined  in  the  instructions  given  by 
Madison,  as  Secretary  of  State,  on  March  2, 
1803,  were  the  cession  to  the  United  States  of 
the  island  of  New  Orleans  and  the  Floridas. 

Meanwhile,  Livingston  had,  if  possible,  re- 
doubled his  exertions.  His  favorite  plan  was 
to  obtain  from  France  the  cession  of  the  island 
of  New  Orleans  and  all  that  part  of  Louisiana 
lying  northward  of  the  Arkansas  Eiver ;  and  he 
also  urged  the  cession  of  West  Florida,  if 
France  had  obtained  it  from  Spain.  On  Mon- 
day, April  11,  he  held  with  Talleyrand  a  me- 
morable and  startling  interview.  Livingston 
was  expatiating  upon  the  subject  of  New 
Orleans,  when  Talleyrand  quietly  inquired 
whether  the  United  States  desired  the  **  whole 
of  Louisiana. ' '  Livingston  answered  that  their 
wishes  extended  only  to  New  Orleans  and  the 
Floridas,  though  policy  dictated  that  France 
should  also  cede  the  country  above  the  river 


158  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Arkansas ;  but  Talleyrand  observed  that,  if  they 
gave  New  Orleans,  the  rest  would  be  of  little 
value,  and  asked  what  the  United  States  would 
**  give  for  the  whole."  Livingston  suggested 
the  sum  of  20,000,000  francs,  provided  the 
claims  of  American  citizens  were  paid. 

Talleyrand  pronounced  the  offer  too  low,  but 
disclaimed  having  spoken  of  the  matter  by  au- 
thority. In  reality  Napoleon  had,  on  the  pre- 
ceding day,  announced  to  two  of  his  ministers 
his  final  resolution.  The  expedition  to  Santo 
Domingo  had  failed  miserably;  colonial  enter- 
prises appeared  to  be  no  longer  practicable; 
war  with  England  was  at  hand;  and  it  seemed 
wiser  to  sell  colonies  than  go  down  with  them 
in  disaster.  In  this  predicament  Napoleon  de- 
cided to  sell  to  the  United  States  not  only  New 
Orleans  but  the  whole  of  Louisiana,  and,  only 
a  few  hours  before  the  interview  between  Tal- 
leyrand and  Livingston  was  held,  had  instructed 
Barbe  Marbois,  his  Minister  of  Finance,  to 
negotiate  the  sale. 

Monroe  arrived  in  Paris  on  April  12.  On  the 
next  day  Marbois  informed  Livingston  that 
Napoleon  had  authorized  him  to  say  that,  if 
the  Americans  would  give  100,000,000  francs 
and  pay  their  claims,  they  might  **  take  the 


EXPANSION  159 

whole  country."  Noting  Livingston's  surprise 
at  the  price,  Marbois  eventually  suggested  that 
the  United  States  should  pay  to  France  the  sum 
of  60,000,000  francs  and  assume  the  claims  of 
its  own  citizens  to  the  amount  of  20,000,000 
more.  Livingston  declared  that  it  was  in  vain 
to  ask  a  thing  so  greatly  beyond  his  country's 
means,  but  promised  to  consult  with  Monroe. 
The  American  plenipotentiaries  were  thus  con- 
fronted with  a  momentous  question  concerning 
which  in  its  full  extent  their  instructions  did 
not  authorize  them  to  treat ;  but,  properly  inter- 
preting the  purposes  of  their  government  and 
the  spirit  of  their  countrymen,  they  promptly 
and  boldly  assumed  the  responsibility.  They 
accepted  Marbois 's  terms,  excessive  as  they  at 
first  seemed,  and  took  the  whole  province. 
Speaking  in  a  prophetic  strain,  Livingston, 
when  he  had  affixed  his  name  to  the  treaty  of 
cession,  exclaimed:  **  We  have  lived  long,  but 
this  is  the  noblest  work  of  our  lives.  .  .  .  To- 
day the  United  States  take  their  place  among 
the  powers  of  the  first  rank.  .  .  .  The  instru- 
ment we  have  signed  will  cause  no  tears  to  flow. 
It  will  prepare  centuries  of  happiness  for  in- 
numerable generations  of  the  human  race." 
Time  has  verified  Livingston's  prevision.    The 


160  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

purchase  of  Louisiana  lias  contributed  more 
than  any  other  territorial  acquisition  to  make 
the  United  States  what  it  is  today. 

Though  the  whole  of  Louisiana  was  ceded, 
its  limits  were  undefined.  The  province  was 
retroceded  by  Spain  to  France  in  1800  **  with 
the  same  extent  that  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of 
Spain,  and  that  it  had  when  France  possessed 
it."  By  the  treaty  of  April  30,  1803,  the  terri- 
tory was  ceded  to  the  United  States  **  in  the 
same  manner,''  but  the  boundaries  had  never 
been  precisely  determined.  Livingston  and 
Monroe  assured  their  government  that  the  ces- 
sion extended  to  the  river  Perdido,  and  there- 
fore embraced  "West  Florida.  This  claim  was 
not  sanctioned  by  France,  but  Congress,  acting 
upon  Livingston  and  Monroe's  assurance,  au- 
thorized the  President  in  his  discretion  to  erect 
**  the  bay  and  river  Mobile  "  and  the  adjacent 
territory  into  a  customs  district.  Spain 
strongly  protested,  and  the  execution  of  the 
measure  was  held  in  suspense.  In  the  summer 
of  1810,  however,  a  revolution  took  place  in 
West  Florida.  Baton  Eouge  was  seized;  the 
independence  of  the  province  was  declared; 
and  an  application  was  made  for  its  admission 
into  the  Union.     The  President  repulsed  this 


EXPANSION  161 

application,  but  occupied  the  territory  as  far 
as  the  river  Pearl,  as  part  of  the  Louisiana 
purchase.  The  country  lying  between  that 
stream  and  the  Perdido  was  permitted  still  to 
remain  in  the  possession  of  Spain. 

On  the  3d  of  January,  1811,  President  Madi- 
son sent  to  Congress  a  secret  message  in  which 
he  recommended  the  expediency  of  authoriz- 
ing the  Executive  to  take  temporary  posses- 
sion of  any  part  of  the  Floridas,  in  pursuance 
of  arrangements  with  the  Spanish  authorities ; 
or  without  such  arrangements,  in  case  those  au- 
thorities should  be  subverted  and  there  should 
be  apprehension  of  the  occupation  of  the  ter- 
ritory by  another  foreign  power.  Acting  on 
this  message,  Congress,  in  secret  session,  on 
the  11th  of  January,  *^  taking  into  view  the 
peculiar  situation  of  Spain  and  her  American 
provinces,^*  and  **  the  influence  which  the  des- 
tiny of  the  territory  adjoining  the  southern 
border  of  the  United  States  may  have  upon 
their  security,  tranquillity  and  commerce, '^  re- 
solved that  the  United  States  could  not  **  with- 
out serious  inquietude  see  any  part  of  said  ter- 
ritory pass  into  the  hands  of  any  foreign 
power,"  and  that  *'  a  due  regard  to  their  own 
safety"  compelled  them  **  to  provide,  under 
11 


152  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

certain  contingencies,  for  the  temporary  occu- 
pation of  the  said  territory,"  the  territory 
so  occupied  to  be  held  *'  subject  to  future 
negotiation. ' ' 

As  to  West  Florida,  Congress  had,  as  we 
have  seen,  already  empowered  the  Executive 
to  exercise  acts  of  possession;  but  as  East 
Florida  unquestionably  still  belonged  to  Spain, 
it  was  necessary  to  confer  upon  the  President 
special  powers  in  regard  to  that  province  in 
order  to  insure  the  object  expressed  in  the  re- 
solution. Congress  therefore  authorized  the 
President  to  take  possession  of  and  occupy  all 
or  any  part  of  East  Florida,  **  in  case  an  ar- 
rangement has  been,  or  shall  be,  made  with  the 
local  authority  of  the  said  territory,  for  de- 
livering up  the  possession  of  the  same,  or  any 
part  thereof,  to  the  United  States;  or  in  the 
event  of  an  attempt  to  occupy  the  said  terri- 
tory, or  any  part  thereof,  by  any  foreign  gov- 
ernment.'*  For  the  purpose  of  occupying  and 
holding  the  territory,  the  President  was  au- 
thorized to  employ  the  army  and  navy  of  the 
United  States ;  and  the  sum  of  $100,000  was  ap- 
propriated **  for  defraying  such  expenses  as 
the  President  may  deem  necessary  for  obtain- 
ing possession  as  aforesaid,  and  the  security  of 
the  said  territory." 


EXPANSION  163 

January  26,  1811,  Monroe,  as  Secretary  of 
State,  instructed  Gen.  George  Matthews  and 
Col.  John  McKee,  as  commissioners  for  carry- 
ing the  act  of  Congress  into  effect,  to  repair  to 
East  Florida  with  all  possible  expedition,  keep- 
ing their  mission  secret ;  and  if  they  should  find 
Governor  Folk  or  the  local  authority  existing 
there  inclined  to  surrender  the  province  in  an 
amicable  manner,  they  were  to  accept  the  abdi- 
cation in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  if 
necessary  agree  to  restore  the  country  at  a 
future  period  to  the  lawful  sovereign.  They 
were  also  authorized,  if  necessary,  to  assume 
the  debts  due  by  Spain  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
territory ;  to  guarantee  titles  to  land ;  to  permit 
the  Spanish  civil  functionaries  to  retain  their 
offices ;  and  to  advance  a  reasonable  sum  for  the 
transportation  of  the  Spanish  troops.  If  no 
such  arrangement  could  be  made  they  were  in- 
structed to  keep  on  the  alert,  and  on  the  first 
undoubted  approach  of  a  foreign  power  to  take 
possession  of  the  territory.  In  that  event  they 
were  to  exercise  a  sound  discretion  as  to  mak- 
ing promises,  taking  care  to  commit  their  gov- 
ernment no  further  than  was  necessary.  A 
similar  course  was  enjoined  in  regard  to  that 
part  of  West  Florida  still  held  in  the  name  of 
Spain. 


164  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

It  does  not  appear  that  McKee  acted  under 
this  commission;  but  Matthews  accepted  it,  re- 
paired to  the  Florida  frontier,  and  took  up  his 
residence  at  St.  Marys.  He  found,  however, 
that  the  governor  and  local  authorities  were 
loyal  to  Spain,  and  not  inclined  to  deliver  up 
the  territory;  nor  was  there  any  sign  of  an  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  any  foreign  power  to  seize 
it;  and  the  general  contentment  of  the  inhabi- 
tants, arising  from  the  agricultural  prosperity 
of  the  country,  was  enhanced  by  the  profits  of 
the  vastly  increased  trade  which  the  United 
States  non-importation  act  diverted  to  the 
neighboring  province  and  of  which  Fernandina, 
on  Amelia  Island,  was  the  chief  entrepot. 
Nevertheless,  there  existed  along  the  border  a 
certain  element,  largely  composed  of  persons 
who  had  emigrated  from  the  neighboring 
States,  which,  although  incompetent  to  effect 
a  revolution  without  external  aid,  was  willing 
to  undertake  a  revolt  if  properly  supported. 
This  support  Matthews  promised;  and  on 
March  14,  1812,  more  than  a  year  after  his  mis- 
sion began,  a  party  of  men,  supplied  with  arms 
partly  from  the  United  States  arsenal  at  Point 
Peter,  assembled  at  Eoses  Bluif,  across  the 
river  from  St.  Marys,  and  raised  the  standard 


EXPANSION  165 

of  revolt  against  the  government  of  East 
Florida.  On  the  16th  of  March  they  attacked 
the  town  of  Fernandina.  Coincidently,  sev- 
eral United  States  gunboats  took  a  position 
opposite  the  town,  and  the  Spanish  command- 
ant, having  been  informed  that  they  intended 
to  assist  the  insurgents,  surrendered  to  the  lat- 
ter, who  took  possession  of  the  place  and  raised 
the  **  patriot  flag."  The  next  day  General 
Matthews  crossed  the  river  with  a  detachment 
of  the  regular  army  and  took  formal  possession 
of  the  town  in  the  name  of  the  United  States, 
subject  to  the  President's  approval.  Within 
a  few  days  the  insurgents,  accompanied  by  a 
body  of  United  States  regulars  and  some  volun- 
teers from  Georgia,  set  out  for  St.  Augustine. 
Their  procedure  was  systematic.  Marching  a 
little  in  advance  of  the  American  forces,  the 
insurgents  would  take  possession  of  the  coun- 
try and  raise  the  ^*  patriot  flag,"  and  then,  in 
the  character  of  **  the  local  authorities,"  sur- 
render the  territory  to  General  Matthews,  who 
would  receive  possession  in  the  name  of  the 
United  States.  In  this  way  he  received  posses- 
sion of  the  country  all  the  way  to  St.  Augustine, 
to  which  place  siege  was  laid  in  the  latter  part 
of  March. 


IQQ  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

The  measures  adopted  by  General  Matthews 
for  obtaining  possession  of  Amelia  Island  and 
other  parts  of  East  Florida  were  disavowed  by 
the  United  States,  and  his  powers  were  re- 
voked. Governor  Mitchell  of  Georgia  was  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him,  with  instructions  to 
withdraw  the  American  troops  and  restore  to 
the  Spanish  authorities  the  country  thus  taken 
from  them.  Monroe,  referring  to  the  employ- 
ment of  American  troops  to  dispossess  the 
Spanish  authorities  by  force,  said :  *  *  I  forbear 
to  dwell  on  the  details  of  this  transaction,  be- 
cause it  is  too  painful  to  recite  them. '  *  At  the 
same  time  Governor  Mitchell  was  directed  to 
obtain  from  the  Spanish  authorities  *  *  the  most 
satisfactory  assurance  '^  with  respect  to  the 
immunity  of  those  inhabitants  who  had  acted 
with  General  Matthews.  This  proved  to  be  a 
troublesome  subject  of  negotiation,  and  to- 
gether with  certain  other  causes  operated  to 
postpone  the  final  evacuation  of  the  province 
till  May  1813.  The  transaction  thus  briefly 
narrated  was  attended  with  lamentable  results 
to  the  inhabitants  of  East  Florida. 

During  the  War  of  1812  "West  Florida  was 
the  scene  of  hostilities  between  the  British  and 
the  American  forces,  and  in  1817  and  1818  it 


EXPANSION  167 

was  the  theatre  of  the  famous  Seminole  War. 
Meanwhile,  the  government  of  the  United 
States  was  endeavoring  to  obtain  from  Spain 
the  relinquishment  of  her  provinces.  The  ne- 
gotiations, which  were  conducted  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  by  John  Quincy  Adams,  were 
brought  to  a  close  by  the  treaty  of  February 
22,  1819,  by  which  Spain  ceded  to  the  United 
States  not  only  the  Floridas,  but  also  the  Span- 
ish titles  north  of  the  forty-second  parallel  of 
north  latitude  from  the  source  of  the  Arkansas 
River  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  In  return,  the 
United  States  agreed  to  pay  the  claims  of  its 
citizens  against  Spain  to  an  amount  not  ex- 
ceeding $5,000,000  and  to  indemnify  the  Span- 
ish inhabitants  of  the  Floridas  for  injuries  suf- 
fered at  the  hands  of  American  forces,  besides 
granting  to  Spanish  commerce  in  the  ceded  ter- 
ritories, for  the  term  of  twelve  years,  excep- 
tional privileges. 

The  claim  of  the  United  States  to  West 
Florida,  as  part  of  the  Louisiana  cession,  must 
be  admitted  to  have  been  extravagant ;  but  there 
is  precise  proof  that  France  at  least  considered 
that  the  boundary  of  Louisiana  on  the  south 
was  the  Rio  Bravo  and  that  the  province  there- 
fore embraced  the  territory  called  Texas.    By 


168  AMEBIC  AN  DEVELOPMENT 

the  treaty  of  February  22,  1819,  however,  the 
territory  lying  between  the  Eio  Bravo  or  Eio 
Grande  del  Norte  and  the  River  Sabine,  which 
had  long  been  in  dispute  between  France  and 
Spain  and  after  1803  between  Spain  and  the 
United  States,  was  acknowledged  to  belong  to 
Spain,  and  subsequently  on  the  independence  of 
Mexico  it  became  a  part  of  that  country.  Soon 
afterwards  efforts  began  to  be  made  to  recover 
Texas  either  in  whole  or  in  part.  Two  such  at- 
tempts were  made  during  the  presidency  of 
John  Quincy  Adams  in  1825  and  1827.  The  ef- 
fort was  renewed  by  President  Jackson  in  1829 
and  again  in  1833.  In  August  1835  the  Ameri- 
can minister  in  Mexico  was  directed  to  per- 
severe in  the  task,  and  also  to  offer  half-a- 
million  dollars  for  the  Bay  of  San  Francisco 
and  certain  adjacent  territory  as  a  resort  for 
American  vessels  in  the  Pacific.  On  March  2, 
1836,  the  people  of  Texas  through  a  convention 
of  delegates  declared  their  independence.  In 
the  following  year  the  authorities  of  Texas 
made  to  President  Van  Buren  an  overture  of 
cession,  which  he  declined.  The  independence 
of  Texas  was,  however,  acknowledged  not  only 
by  the  United  States  but  also  by  France  and 
Great  Britain,   and  treaties  were  made  with 


EXPANSION  169 

Texas  by  all  those  powers.  On  April  12,  ISM, 
a  treaty  of  annexation  was  concluded  at  Wash- 
ington. This  treaty  having  failed  in  the 
Senate,  Congress  by  a  joint  resolution  approved 
March  1,  1845,  took  action  looking  to  the  ad- 
mission of  Texas  into  the  Union  as  a  State. 
The  terms  offered  in  the  resolution  of  Congress 
were  accepted  by  Texas ;  and,  by  a  joint  resolu- 
tion of  Congress,  approved  December  29,  1845, 
the  admission  was  formally  accomplished. 
Tex?as  was,  to  use  the  phrase  of  the  day,  *'  re- 
annexed.'' 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  more  than  nine  years 
had  elapsed  since  Texas  had  declared  her  in- 
dependence and  begun  to  maintain  it,  and  that 
treaty  relations  had  been  established  by  the  re- 
public not  only  with  the  United  States  but  also 
with  the  two  principal  powers  of  Europe,  the 
Mexican  government  had  advised  the  United 
States  that  the  annexation  would  be  re- 
garded by  Mexico  as  a  cause  of  war.  Be- 
fore the  annexation  was  completed  the  Mexi- 
can minister  left  Washington  and  diplomatic 
relations  were  suspended.  President  Polk  sub- 
sequently sent  John  Slidell  as  minister  to 
Mexico  to  restore  diplomatic  relations  and  ne- 
gotiate a  settlement  of  all  differences,  which 


170  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

embraced  not  only  questions  growing  out  of 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  but  also  the  unsatis- 
fied claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  on 
account  of  damages  suffered  in  Mexico.  Slidell, 
after  two  successive  governments  had  refused 
to  receive  him,  returned  to  the  United  States. 
The  Mexican  government  had  already  begun  to 
collect  its  forces  at  Matamoras,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Rio  Grande,  which  had  by  an  act  of  the 
Texan  Congress  been  designated  as  the  bound- 
ary between  Texas  and  Mexico.  By  the  terms 
of  the  annexation,  all  questions  of  boundary 
that  might  arise  with  other  governments  were 
left  to  be  adjusted  by  the  United  States.  The 
Mexican  government  claimed  all  the  territory 
between  the  Rio  Grande  and  the  River  Nueces, 
and  the  massing  of  her  forces  was  apparently 
intended  to  enforce  this  claim.  By  the  act  of 
Congress  of  December  31,  1845,  creating  the 
customs  district  of  Texas,  the  town  of  Corpus 
Christi  on  the  south  of  the  Nueces  was  design- 
ated as  one  of  five  ports  of  delivery,  Galveston 
being  the  only  port  of  entry.  In  January  1846, 
General  Taylor,  who  had  under  his  command 
only  2,000  troops,  was  ordered  to  proceed  to  the 
north  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande.  He  established 
himself  at  a  point  opposite  Matamoras  and  pro- 


EXPANSION  171 

ceeded  to  fortify  Hs  position.     On  April  12, 
General  Ampudia,   commanding  the  Mexican 
forces  at  Matamoras,  demanded  Taylor's  with- 
drawal and  his  retirement  to  the  north  of  the 
Nueces.     Twelve  days  later  (April  24)  General 
Arista,  who  had  succeeded  Ampudia,  notified 
Taylor,  who  had  disregarded  Ampudia 's  de- 
mand, that  hostilities  were  begun.    On  the  same 
day  two  companies  of  American  dragoons,  con- 
sisting of  63  officers  and  men,  were  while  re- 
connoitering  killed   or   captured   by   Mexican 
troops  who  had  crossed  the  river  above  Mata- 
moras.    The  war  was  indeed  begun.     General 
Taylor's  official  report  of  the  attack  upon  his 
forces  was  received  in  Washington  late  in  the   , 
afternoon  on  Saturday  the  9th  of  May.     On 
May  11,  President  Polk  in  a  message  to  Con- 
gress stated  that  American  blood  had  been  shed 
on  American  soil  and  that  war  existed  by  act 
of  Mexico.    It  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  dis- 
closed by  Polk's  diary,  that,  if  the  report  of 
hostilities  had  not  reached  Washington  on  the   I 
9th  of  May,  a  message,  recommending  a  declar-  / 
ation  of  war  against  Mexico,  might  have  been  / 
sent  to  Congress  on  the  12th  or  soon  after-/ 
wards.     At  a  meeting  of  the  cabinet  on  the^ 
morning  of  the  9th,  all  the  members  but  one 

J 


172  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

advised  the  President  that  such  a  message 
should  be  sent,  and  it  was  agreed  that  it  should 
be  prepared  and  submitted  to  the  cabinet  on  the 
12th,  together  with  the  documents  which  should 
accompany  it.  The  judgment  of  the  President 
and  his  cabinet  as  to  the  nature  and  gravity  of 
the  situation  was  remarkably  confirmed  by  the 
event. 

Congress  with  practical  unanimity  responded 
to  the  President's  view  that  war  existed  by 
act  of  Mexico,  and  a  law  was  promptly  enacted 
so  declaring.  In  reality,  within  the  three  days 
preceding  I^olk's  message,  there  had  been 
fought  the  battles  of  Palo  Alto  and  Eesaca  de 
la  Palma  in  which  the  Mexican  forces  though 
superior  in  numbers  were  driven  across  the 
Eio  Grande.  By  the  Treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo  of  February  2,  1848,  by  which  the  war 
was  ended,  the  United  States  acquired  Cali- 
fornia and  New  Mexico.  The  territory  de- 
signated as  New  Mexico  embraced  the  political 
divisions  now  known  as  Nevada,  Utah,  and 
Arizona,  and  parts  of  Wyoming,  Colorado  and 
New  Mexico.  In  consideration  of  these  ces- 
sions the  United  States  paid  to  Mexico  $15,- 
000,000  and  assumed  the  payment  of  claims  of 
American  citizens  against  Mexico  to  an  amount 


EXPANSION  173 

not  exceeding  $3,250,000.  The  acquisitions 
thus  made  were  enlarged  by  the  convention  of 
December  30,  1853,  commonly  called  the 
Gadsden  treaty,  by  which  Mexico  for  the  sum 
of  $10,000,000  released  the  United  States  from 
liability  on  account  of  certain  stipulations  of 
the  Treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo  and  ceded  the 
Mesilla  valley.  This  cession,  which  is  often 
called  the  Gadsden  Purchase,  was  strongly  de- 
sired by  the  United  States  not  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  a  safe  frontier  against  the 
Indians  but  also  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
a  feasible  route  for  a  railway  near  the  Gila 
Eiver. 

No  acquisition  of  territory  by  the  United 
States  has  been  the  subject  of  so  much  honest 
but  partisan  misconception  as  that  of  the  an- 
nexation of  Texas  and  the  acquisition  of  Cali- 
fornia and  New  Mexico.  All  shades  of  senti- 
ment have  been  represented  in  the  contest, — 
fatalists,  providentialists,  optimists,  and  pessi- 
mists have  contended  with  one  another  for  vic- 
tory. By  one  school  of  writers,  whose  views 
have  had  great  currency,  the  annexation  has 
been  denounced  as  the  result  of  a  plot  of  the 
slave  power  to  extend  its  dominions,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  John  C.  Calhoun,  who  looked 


174  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

with  dread  upon  the  enhancement  of  national 
power  which  military  activities  were  likely  to 
bring  about,  was  one  of  the  few  opponents  in 
Congress  of  the  Mexican  War.  In  reality,  no 
extension  of  American  territory  was  ever  more 
completely  in  conformity  with  the  aspirations 
and  habits  of  thought  of  the  American  people. 
But  for  the  controversy  concerning  slavery,  it 
may  be  believed  that  there  would  have  been  no 
appreciable  opposition  in  the  United  States  to 
the  acquisition  of  Texas  or  of  California  and 
New  Mexico,  and  that  such  local  antagonism  as 
might  have  existed  to  the  disturbance  of  the 
balance  of  power  in  the  Union  would  have  been 
overwhelmed  by  the  general  demand  for  an  ex- 
tension of  boundaries  so  natural,  and,  except 
for  the  slavery  question,  in  every  respect  so 
expedient.  Certainly  no  acquisition  was  ever 
made  in  which  the  sjurit  of  providentialism, 
which  has  been  so  influential  in  the  extension 
of  national  boundaries,  has  been  more  clearly 
exemplified.  Polk  himself  records  that  he  sus- 
pended the  composition  of  his  war  message, 
which  was  prepared  on  Sunday,  in  order  to  at- 
tend church,  and  it  is  hardly  probable  that  the 
fervor  which  characterizes  its  concluding  sen- 
tences was  diminished  by  his  devotions.     He 


EXPANSION  175 

was  no  hypocrite.  His  character  is  emerging 
from  the  mists  of  controversy  as  that  of  a 
sturdy  American,  devoted  to  his  country,  who 
had  opinions  of  his  own  and  maintained  them 
with  the  confidence  of  sincere  conviction.  He 
instinctively  regarded  himself  as  promoting, 
rather  than  as  transgressing,  the  designs  of 
the  Almighty  in  helping  to  enlarge  the  boun- 
daries of  the  United  States,  while  to  him  and 
the  world  of  his  time  the  battle  stories  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  more  real  than  the  peace- 
ful counsels  of  the  New. 

The  annexation,  or  **  reannexation, "  of 
Texas  had  been  earnestly  advocated  and  was 
afterwards  widely  extolled  as  a  partial  fulfil- 
ment of  the  ^*  manifest  destiny  "  of  the  United 
States  to  embrace  at  least  the  entire  continent 
of  North  America;  and  because  some  of  those 
who  used  the  phrase  supported,  or  at  any  rate 
did  not  oppose,  the  extension  of  slavery,  the 
doctrine  of  ^*  manifest  destiny  ''  was  on  the 
other  hand  denounced  as  a  slaveholders'  doc- 
trine. We  of  the  present  generations  who  have 
lately  heard  a  statesman,  on  the  verge  of  oc- 
cupying a  position  no  less  exalted  and  respon- 
sible than  that  of  Speaker  of  the  national  House 
of  Representatives,  intimate,  in  a  spirit  of  pure 


176  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

benevolence,  while  the  fate  of  a  delicate  negotia- 
tion for  wider  trade  relations  with  the  Dominion 
of  Canada  was  hanging  in  the  balance,  that  the 
absorption  of  that  part  of  the  British  dominions 
would  not  seriously  tax  our  capacity,  but  might 
even  be  considered  an  agreeable  and  stimulating 
digestive  operation,  can  see  things  with  a  clearer 
vision.^  Manifest  Destiny  is  not  indeed  a 
slaveholders'  doctrine,  but  is  merely  providen- 
tialism  in  practical  operation.  It  has  by  no 
one  been  more  beautifully  or  suggestively  de- 
scribed than  by  John  Jay,  a  man  of  devout 
mind,  who  was  with  some  foundation  thought  to 
have  neglected  the  interests  of  the  slaveholding 

1  February  14,  1911,  the  Hon.  Champ  Clark,  then  a  member 
and  Speaker-elect  of  the  House,  in  the  course  of  a  speech  on 
the  Canadian  Reciprocity  Bill,  said:  "  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
reciprocity  treaty  to  promote  our  trade  relations.  ...  I  am  for 
it,  oecause  I  hope  to  see  the  day  when  the  American  flag  will 
float  over  every  square  foot  of  the  British  North  American 
possessions  clear  to  the  North  Pole.  They  are  people  of  our 
blood.  They  speak  our  language.  Their  institutions  are  much 
like  ours.  They  are  trained  in  the  difficult  art  of  self-govern- 
ment."  He  further  declared  that  he  had  no  doubt  that  the 
measure  would  tend  to  bring  Canada  into  the  Union,  and  being 
asked  whether  he  thought  that  this  would  tend  to  preserve 
peace  with  Great  Britain,  he  replied;  "Why,  certainly  it  will. 
I  do  not  have  any  doubt  whatever  that  the  day  is  not  far  dis- 
tant when  Great  Britain  will  joyfully  see  all  her  North  Amer- 
ican possessions  become  a  part  of  this  Republic.  That  is  the 
way  things  are  tending  now.*'  (Congressional  Record,  vol.  46, 
part  3,  pp.  2520-2521.) 


EXPANSION  177 

population  of  the  United  States  in  his  treaty 
with  Great  Britain.  Jay,  in  his  first  number 
of  the  Federalist,  tells  with  what  pleasure  he 
had  observed  **  that  independent  America  was 
not  composed  of  detached  and  distant  terri- 
tories, but  that  one  connected,  fertile,  wide- 
spreading  country  was  the  portion  of  our  west- 
ern sons  of  liberty;  that  Providence  had  in  a 
particular  manner  blessed  it  with  a  variety  of 
soils  and  productions,  and  watered  it  with  in- 
numerable streams,  for  the  delight  and  accom- 
modation of  its  inhabitants  ";  that  it  had 
**  navigable  waters  '*  to  bind  it  together,  and 
*  *  the  most  noble  rivers  in  the  world,  running  at 
convenient  distances  ^',  to  provide  communica- 
tion and  transportation;  and  that  Providence 
had  **  been  pleased  to  give  this  one  connected 
country  "  to  what,  in  spite  of  the  combination 
of  English  and  Irish,  Dutch  and  Swedes,  Span- 
ish and  French,  Pilgrims  and  Puritans,  Eound- 
heads  and  Cavaliers,  Protestants,  Catholics  and 
Quakers,  he  could  call  **  one  united  people  '' — 
a  people,  he  declared,  **  descended  from  the 
same  ancestors,  speaking  the  same  language, 
professing  the  same  religion 'M  Is  it  surpris- 
ing that  he  finally  exclaimed,  **  This  country 
and  this  people  seem  to  have  been  made  for 
12 


178  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

each  other '^?  Is  it  more  surprising  that  this 
same  **  united  people  '^  should  regard  another 
fertile,  well  watered,  widespreading  country^ 
as  equally  made  for  it,  if  such  country  should 
happen  to  fall  in  its  way?  All  North  America 
was  indeed  in  a  sense  connected,  fertile,  wide- 
spreading  and  well  watered.  A  great  part  of 
South  America  may  be  described  as  connected, 
fertile,  widespreading  and  well  watered.  The 
same  happy  conditions  might  even  be  found  in 
Europe,  in  Asia  and  in  Africa.  It  may  truly 
be  confessed  that  the  conception  is  applicable 
to  all  quarters  of  the  habitable  globe. 

Six  months  after  the  annexation  of  Texas  and 
a  month  after  the  beginning  of  the  Mexican 
War,  the  long  dispute  as  to  the  Oregon  terri- 
tory was  brought  to  a  close.  This  territory 
was  bounded,  according  to  the  claim  of  the 
United  States,  by  the  forty-second  parallel  of 
north  latitude  on  the  south;  by  the  line  of 
54°  40'  on  the  north,  and  by  the  Eocky  Moun- 
tains on  the  east.  It  embraced,  roughly  speak- 
ing, an  area  of  600,000  square  miles.  The  claim 
of  the  United  States  was  founded  upon  the  dis- 
covery by  Captain  Eobert  Gray  of  the  Ameri- 
can Ship  Columbia,  in  1792,  of  the  Eiver  of  the 
West,   which   he   named,   from   his    ship,   the 


EXPANSION  179 

Columbia  Eiver;  the  exploration  of  the  main 
branch  of  that  river  by  Lewis  and  Clark;  the 
establishment  of  the  fur-trading  post  of  Astoria 
by  John  Jacob  Astor  in  1815,  and  its  restora- 
tion to  the  United  States  under  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent ;  and  finally  the  acquisition  in  1819  of  all 
the  territorial  rights  of  Spain  on  the  Pacific 
Ocean  above  the  42°  of  north  latitude.  By  the 
Democratic  National  Platform  of  1844,  the  title 
of  the  United  States  to  the  whole  of  Oregon 
was  declared  to  be  clear  and  unquestionable; 
and  this  declaration  was  repeated  by  President 
Polk  in  his  inaugural  address  in  quotation 
marks.  It  was  popularly  interpreted  to  mean 
*  *  Fifty-four- forty  or  light, ' '  and  Polk  believed, 
not  without  reason,  that  the  people  were  willing 
to  fight  for  it.  But  on  June  15,  1846,  the  dis- 
pute was  terminated  by  a  nearly  equal  division 
of  the  territory  along  the  forty-ninth  parallel 
of  north  latitude,  the  boundary  being  deflected 
southerly  from  that  line  at  the  Pacific  so  as  to 
leave  to  Great  Britain  the  whole  of  Vancouver's  \ 
Island.  The  acquisition  of  this  territory  has 
been  described  as  the  result  of  a  policy  of 
**  accretion  "  not  colonization.  This  view  was 
afterwards  expounded  by  no  less  a  Whig  states-  1 
man  than  Edward  Everett,  who,  as  Secretary 


180  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

of  State,  defended  the  territorial  acquisitions 
from  Mexico  and  evidently  looked  to  the  even- 
tual absorption  of  Cuba  by  the  United  States. 
Vast  regions,  said  Everett,  which  *^  had  lan- 
guished for  three  centuries  under  the  leaden 
sway  of  a  stationary  system,'^  had  come  *^ under 
the  influences  of  an  active  civilization/'  Free- 
dom of  speech  and  of  the  press,  trial  by  jury, 
religious  equality,  and  representative  govern- 
ment had,  he  declared,  **  been  carried  into  ex- 
tensive regions  where  they  were  unknown  be- 
fore, ' '  while,  by  the  acquisitions  on  the  Pacific, 
the  **  great  circuit  of  intelligence  round  the 
globe  '^  was  completed.  It  may  indeed  be  af- 
firmed that  the  eloquence  with  which  the  ac- 
quisitive diplomacy  had  been  reprobated  was 
equalled  only  by  the  eloquence  with  which  its 
beneficent  results  were  afterwards  set  forth. 
Men  of  all  parties,  when  their  minds  were 
drawn  away  from  the  contemplation  of  slavery 
and  from  the  controversies  to  which  its  con- 
tinued existence  gave  rise,  could  unite  and  with 
genuine  enthusiasm  sing  the  praises  of  expan- 
sion in  the  spirit  of  the  lines — 

"So  shall  the  nation's  pioneer 
"Go  joyful  on  his  way, 


EXPANSION  181 

"To  wed  Penobscot's  waters 
**To  San  Francisco's  Bay; 

*  *  To  ma]j:e  the  rugged  places  smooth, 

*  *  To  sow  the  vales  with  grain, 

* '  And  bear,  with  Liberty  and  Law, 

'  *  The  Bible  in  his  train. 

' '  The  mighty  West  shall  bless  the  East, 

* '  And  sea  shall  answer  sea, 

"And  mountain  unto  mountain  call — 

*  *  Praise  God,  for  we  are  free ! ' ' 

By  the  treaty  signed  at  Washington  on 
March  30,  1867,  the  Russian  Emperor,  in  con- 
sideration of  the  sum  of  $7,200,000,  conveyed 
to  the  United  States  all  his  '*  territory  and 
dominion  "  in  America.  We  have  called  the 
territory  Alaska.  This  transaction  has  been 
the  subject  of  many  strange  conjectures.  It 
has  suggested  that  it  was  designed  to  reim- 
burse Russia  for  the  expense  of  her  *  *  friendly 
naval  demonstration  "  during  the  Civil  War  in 
the  United  States, — a  suggestion  which  may 
be  placed  in  the  category  of  the  fantastic.  It 
has  been  stated  on  the  supposed  authority  of 
Robert  J.  Walker  that  the  Emperor  Nicholas 
was  ready  to  give  Alaska  to  the  United  States 
during  the  Crimean  War  if  the  United  States 
would,  in  spite  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  re-assert 
its  claim  to  the  whole  of  Oregon.    The  terri- 


182  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

tory  was  in  reality  of  comparatively  little 
value  to  Kussia,  who  had  for  years  leased  an 
important  part  of  the  southern  coast  to  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company.  To  the  United  States 
its  potential  value  was  obviously  greater,  while 
its  acquisition  was  gratifying  to  the  spirit  of 
continental  dominion  which  has  always  been  so 
strongly  manifested  by  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  From  the  point  of  view,  however,  of 
communication  and  defense,  the  territory  was 
as  completely  detached  as  if  it  had  had  no 
direct  physical  connection  with  the  continent. 
The  idea  or  mental  conception  of  physical  con- 
tinuity has  caused  this  aspect  of  the  subject 
to  be  overlooked.  In  reality,  for  purposes  of 
communication  and  defense,  the  United  States 
was  obliged  to  rely  wholly  upon  the  sea;  not 
only  was  the  intervening  territory  British  but 
it  was  not  readily  traversable.  In  this  as- 
pect the  situation  of  Alaska  did  not  differ  from 
that  of  a  distant  island  or  group  of  islands, 
while  the  most  westerly  of  the  Aleutian  Islands, 
which  form  part  of  the  cession,  lies  farther  to 
the  west  of  San  Francisco  than  San  Francisco 
lies  to  the  west  of  New  York. 

The  acquisition  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  un- 
der the  joint  resolution  of  Congress  of  July 


EXPANSION  183 

7,  1898,  marked  the  logical  eonsTimmation  of 
the  special  relations  that  had  long  subsisted  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  that  group.  As 
early  as  1853  the  United  States,  while  William 
L.  Marcy  was  Secretary  of  State,  sought  to 
annex  the  islands.  Subsequently,  annexation 
was  put  aside  for  reciprocity,  but  at  length,  on 
January  30,  1875,  a  treaty  was  concluded  by 
which  the  islands  were  virtually  placed  under 
an  American  protectorate.  This  treaty  was 
renewed  in  1887,  with  an  additional  article  con- 
ceding to  the  United  States  the  right  to  estab- 
lish a  naval  station  in  the  harbor  of  Pearl 
Eiver.  February  14,  1893,  a  treaty  of  annexa- 
tion was  signed  at  Washington,  but  on  the 
change  of  administration  was  withdrawn  from 
the  Senate.  Another  treaty  of  annexation, 
signed  June  16,  1897,  was  still  pending  before 
the  Senate  when  the  joint  resolution  was  passed 
by  which  the  acquisition  of  the  islands  was 
definitely  accomplished. 

This  transaction  was  consummated  in  the 
midst  of  the  War  with  Spain.  The  Spanish 
islands  in  the  West  Indies,  comprising  all  that 
remained  to  Spain  of  her  once  vast  possessions 
in  America,  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  provi- 
dentialist  principle  of  **  manifest  destiny;"  but 


184  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in  directing 
forcible  intervention  in  the  conflict  between 
Spain  and  the  Cuban  insurgents,  laid  upon  the 
people  of  the  United  States  a  self-denying  or- 
dinance with  reference  to  Cuba.  The  Spanish 
possessions  in  the  Far  East  and  particularly 
the  Philippine  Islands  lay  beyond  the  accus- 
tomed range  of  American  political  thought.  It 
may  be  affirmed  that  when  the  war  with  Spain 
began  there  were  comparatively  few  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  United  States  who  could  tell 
where  the  Philippine  Islands  were  situated,  and 
that  the  number  was  not  large  to  whom  even 
the  name  suggested  more  than  a  dim  and  vague 
reminiscence  of  early  lessons  in  geography. 
Something  had  been  heard  commercially  of 
Manila  hemp,  but  there  were  few  outside  the 
trade  who  knew  where  Manila  was. 

The  destruction  of  the  Spanish  Fleet  in 
Manila  Bay  on  the  morning  of  the  1st  of  May, 
1898,  created  the  supposition  that  Manila  was 
a  Spanish  city  and  led  to  a  general  acquaint- 
ance with  the  fact  that  it  was  in  the  Philippine 
Islands.  But  it  may  be  confidently  asserted 
that  up  to  that  time  the  acquisition  of  the 
Philippines  by  the  United  States  had  not  been 
suggested  even  as  a  possible  contingency;  nor, 


EXPANSION  185 

although  Dewey's  victory  attracted  attention  to 
the  islands,  was  it  followed  by  any  general  or 
definite  expression  of  a  desire  for  their  annexa- 
tion. An  accident  of  war  was  destined  to 
exert  an  important  influence  on  the  direction  of 
public  sentiment.  Soon  after  the  destruction 
of  the  Spanish  fleet  telegraphic  communication 
with  the  islands  was  severed.  For  this  reason 
the  orders  that  were  sent  out  from  Washington 
on  August  12,  on  the  signing  of  the  peace  pro- 
tocol of  that  date,  for  the  suspension  of  hostili- 
ties were  a  week  old  when  they  reached  the 
Philippines.  Meanwhile,  on  August  13,  Manila 
was  captured  by  the  American  forces  and  on 
the  following  day  a  capitulation  was  signed.  A 
peaceful  occupation  of  the  city  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  protocol  would  have  excited  little 
feeling.  The  report  of  its  capture  by  force  of 
arms  with  some  casualities  was  received  in  the 
United  States  eight  days  after  the  signing  of 
the  protocol.  The  effect  was  visible  and  pro- 
nounced. It  gave  a  decided  impulse  to  annexa- 
tion sentiment.  The  question  began  to  be  popu- 
larly discussed  as  one  not  of  taking  the  islands 
but  of  abandoning  them.  And  the  tendency  to 
retain  them  was  powerfully  re-enforced  by  the 
growth  of  a  missionary  spirit  which  discerned 


X85  AMEEICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

in  the  course  of  events  a  providential  opportun- 
ity to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  natives,  an 
opportunity  the  neglect  of  which,  because  of 
preconceived  notions  of  national  interests, 
would  constitute  a  selfish  and  censurable  abdi- 
cation of  duty. 

Combined  with  this  was  the  commercial 
spirit,  which  with  its  usual  eagerness  began  to 
speak  of  the  wealth  of  the  islands,  latent  as  well 
as  available,  as  if  it  were  all  immediately  con- 
vertible into  cash,  while  nothing  was  placed  on 
the  opposite  side  of  the  ledger.  Nevertheless, 
President  McKinley  in  his  instructions  to  the 
American  Peace  Commission  of  September  16, 
1898,  went  no  further  than  to  say  that  United 
States  could  not  accept  **  less  than  '^  the  Island 
of  Luzon.  During  the  following  weeks,  how- 
ever, much  consideration  was  given  to  the  sub- 
ject; President  McKinley  made  a  tour  of  the 
country,  and  on  October  28  the  American  com- 
missioners were  instructed  that  the  President 
could  see  *  *  but  one  plain  path  of  duty — the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  archipelago.'* 

A  proposal  to  this  effect  was  made,  and,  after 
much  negotiation,  an  ultimatum  was  presented 
by  the  American  commissioners,  embracing  the 
cession  of  the  entire  archipelago  to  the  United 


EXPANSION  187 

States  and  the  payment  to  Spain  of  the  sum  of 
$20,000,000.  The  American  commissioners,  de- 
claring it  to  be  *^  the  policy  of  the  United 
States  to  maintain  in  the  Philippines  an  open 
door  to  the  world's  commerce,''  further  offered 
to  concede  to  Spanish  ships  and  merchandise, 
for  a  term  of  years,  admission  to  the  ports  of 
the  islands  on  the  same  terms  as  American 
ships  and  merchandise.  They  also  proposed  a 
mutual  relinquishment  of  claims  that  had  arisen 
since  the  beginning  of  the  insurrection  in  Cuba 
in  1895.  On  this  basis  there  was  signed  at  Paris 
on  December  10,  1898,  a  treaty  of  peace,  under 
which  the  United  States  became  the  proprietor 
of  all  the  Spanish  islands  in  the  West  Indies 
except  Cuba,  and  of  the  Philippine  Islands  and 
Guam  in  the  East  Indies. 

"While  the  acquisition  of  the  Philippines  was 
wholly  unpremeditated,  can  it  after  all  be  said 
to  have  disclosed  symptoms  or  tendencies  with 
which  the  entire  previous  conduct  of  the  United 
States  was  at  variance?  What  is  to  be  said  of 
the  case  of  Samoa?  American  traders  early 
carried  their  operations  into  the  Far  East,  and 
the  interests  which  they  established  there  were 
larger  than  is  generally  supposed.  The  part 
played  by  the  United  States  in  the  opening  of 


188  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Japan  is  so  well  known  that  it  would  be  super- 
fluous here  to  narrate  it.  Still,  it  did  not  in- 
volve the  exercise  of  political  control;  but  this 
cannot  be  said  of  the  course  of  the  United  States 
with  reference  to  the  Samoan  Islands.  Al- 
though the  United  States  was  represented  by  a 
commercial  agent  at  Apia  at  least  as  early  as 
1853,  the  affairs  of  the  islands  attracted  little 
attention  till  1872,  when  the  great  chief  of  the 
bay  of  Pago-Pago,  in  the  island  of  Tutuila,  with 
a  view  to  obtain  the  protection  of  the  United 
States,  concluded  with  Commander  Meade,  of 
the  U.  S.  S.  Narragansett,  an  agreement  under 
which  the  government  was  to  have  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  establishing  in  that  harbor  a  naval 
station.  This  agreement,  although  it  was  com- 
municated to  the  Senate,  was  not  acted  upon; 
but  on  January  16,  1878,  a  treaty  was  con- 
cluded at  Washington,  by  which  the  privileges 
previously  sought  to  be  conveyed  to  the  United 
States  were  confirmed,  and  by  which  it  was  pro- 
vided that,  if  differences  should  arise  between 
the  Samoan  government  and  any  other  govern- 
ment in  amity  with  the  United  States,  the  latter 
would  **  employ  its  good  offices  for  the  purpose 
of  adjusting  those  dliferences  upon  a  satisfac- 
tory and  solid  foundation. ' '    It  was  under  this 


EXPANSION  189 

clause,  when  conditions  had  been  disturbed  in 
the  islands,  that  the  conference,  which  was  held 
in  Washington  in  June  and  July,  1887,  between 
Mr.  Bayard,  as  Secretary  of  State,  and  the 
British  and  German  ministers,  on  Samoan  af- 
fairs, was  brought  about.  The  conference,  no 
agreement  having  been  reached,  was  adjourned 
till  the  autumn.  Germany  intervened  in  the 
islands,  and  became  involved  in  hostilities  with 
a  part  of  the  native  population.  The  American 
naval  forces  in  the  islands  were  increased; 
Congress  appropriated  half-a-million  dollars 
for  the  protection  of  American  interests;  and 
the  friendly  relations  between  the  United 
States  and  Germany  had  become  seriously 
strained  and  seemed  to  be  in  danger  of  rupture 
when,  on  the  invitation  of  Prince  Bismarck,  the 
conference  was  resumed  at  Berlin.  It  resulted 
in  the  treaty  of  June  14,  1889,  by  which  the 
islands  were  placed  under  the  joint  protection 
and  administration  of  the  three  powers.  The 
cumbersome,  complicated  and  inappropriate  tri- 
partite government  thus  established  broke  down 
of  its  own  weight;  and  at  length,  by  a  treaty 
between  the  three  powers,  concluded  December 
2,  1899,  Tutuila  and  the  adjacent  islands,  east 
of  longitude  171°  west  of  Greenwich,  passed 


190  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
where  they  still  remain,  while  Upolu  and  Savaii 
and  other  islands  west  of  that  meridian  were 
left  to  Germany.  The  significance  of  the  Samoan 
incident  lies,  however,  not  in  the  mere  division 
of  territory,  but  in  the  disposition  shown  by 
the  United  States,  long  before  the  acquisition 
of  the  Philippines,  to  go  to  any  length  in  as- 
serting a  claim  to  take  part  in  the  determina- 
tion of  the  fate  of  a  group  of  islands,  thousands 
of  miles  away,  in  which  American  commercial 
interests  were  so  slight  as  to  be  scarcely  ap- 
preciable. 

Besides  the  annexations  already  described, 
the  United  States  has  acquired  or  assumed 
jurisdiction  over  many  islands  in  various  parts 
of  the  world.  In  1850,  the  cession  was  obtained 
from  Great  Britain  of  Horse-Shoe  Eeef ,  in  Lake 
Erie,  for  the  purposes  of  a  lighthouse.  In 
1867,  Brooks  or  Midway  Islands,  lying  1100 
miles  west  of  Honolulu,  were  formally  occupied 
by  the  commander  ol  the  U.  S.  S.  Lackawanna. 
In  like  manner  the  atoll  called  Wake  Island, 
lying  in  latitude  19°  17'  50"  north  and  longitude 
166°  31'  east,  was  taken  possession  of  in  1899 
by  the  commander  of  the  U.  S.  S.  Bennington. 
But  the  greatest  extension  of  jurisdiction  over 


EXPANSION  191 

detached  islands  or  groups  of  islands  has  taken 
place  by  a  process  of  unconscious  occupation 
which  was  very  active  during  two  decades  of 
the  past  century.  The  discovery  of  Peruvian 
guano  brought  to  the  exhausted  energies  of  the 
worn-out  lands  of  the  Eastern  States  a  power 
of  resurrection.  In  order  to  encourage  and  re- 
ward the  search  for  guano  in  other  quarters, 
Congress,  by  the  Act  of  August  18,  1856,  com- 
monly called  the  Guano  Islands  Act,  provided 
that,  whenever  any  citizen  of  the  United  States 
should  discover  a  deposit  of  guano  on  any 
island,  rock,  or  key,  not  within  the  lawful  juris- 
diction or  occupied  by  the  citizens  of  any  other 
government,  and  should  peaceably  occupy  it, 
the  President  might,,  on  the  performance  by  the 
discoverer  of  certain  conditions,  treat  it  as 
appertaining  to  the  United  States ;  but  the  gov- 
ernment is  not  obliged  to  retain  possession  after 
the  guano  shall  have  been  removed.  Under  this 
statute  about  seventy  islands,  lying  in  various 
parts  of  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific,  are  still 
considered  as  belonging  to  the  United  States.^ 
An  attempt  was  made  by  the  United  States  in 

1  A  list  of  these  islands,  with  indications  of  their  latitude 
and  longitude,  is  given  in  Moore 's  Digest  of  International  Law, 
I,  567  et  seq. 


192  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

1856  to  obtain  from  New  Granada  the  cession 
of  five  islands  in  the  bay  of  Panama,  with  a 
view  to  protect  the  transit  across  the  Isthmns. 
This  attempt  was  unsuccessful.  By  the  con- 
vention with  the  Eepublic  of  Panama,  Novem- 
ber 18,  1903,  the  United  States  acquired  in  per- 
petuity the  use,  occupation,  and  control  of  a 
zone  ten  miles  wide  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama, 
and  certain  adjacent  islands,  for  the  purposes 
of  an  interoceanic  canal.  Within  these  lands 
and  the  adjacent  waters  the  United  States  is 
declared  to  possess  **  all  the  rights,  power,  and 
authority  '  *  which  it  would  have  if  it  were  the 
sovereign  of  the  territory  within  which  the 
lands  and  waters  lie.  These  concessions  were 
obtained  from  the  Eepublic  of  Panama,  to 
which  compensation  was  made  for  them. 

The  acquisitions  actually  accomplished  do  not 
comprise  the  entire  sum  of  the  activities  of  the 
United  States  in  the  direction  of  territorial  ex- 
pansion. As  late  as  1870  the  annexation  of 
Canada,  to  which  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
looked,  was  the  subject  of  informal  discussions 
between  British  and  American  diplomatists. 
In  1848  Spain  summarily  repulsed  an  offer  of 
$100,000,000  for  Cuba.  More  than  twenty  years 
later,  during  the  Ten  Years'  War,  an  unsuc- 


EXPANSION  193 

cessful  attempt  was  made  to  induce  Spain  to 
relinquish  the  island  cither  by  ceding  it  to  the 
United  States  or  by  granting  it  independence 
under  the  latter 's  guarantee.  Not  long  before, 
the  Spanish  government  refused  to  cede  the 
islands  of  Culebra  and  Culebrita  to  the  United 
States  as  a  naval  station;  they  eventually 
passed  to  the  United  States  by  the  peace  of 
1898.  In  1848  an  offer  of  the  sovereignty  of 
Yucatan  was  favorably  received  by  President 
Polk,  but  the  occasion  for  its  consideration  soon 
passed  away.  In  1854-1855  the  United  States 
sought  to  obtain  a  coaling  station  in  Samana 
Bay ;  in  1866  a  cession  or  lease  of  the  peninsula 
of  Samana  was  sought  as  a  naval  station.  In 
1868  the  President  of  the  Dominican  Republic 
requested  the  United  States  immediately  to  take 
the  country  under  its  protection  and  to  occupy 
Samana  Bay  and  other  strategic  points  as  a 
preliminary  to  annexation.  President  Johnson 
in  his  annual  message  of  December  9,  1868,  Mr. 
Seward  being  Secretary  of  State,  advocated 
the  acquisition  of  ^*  the  several  adjacent  con- 
tinental and  insular  communities  as  speedily  as 
it  may  be  done  peacefully,  lawfully,  and  with- 
out any  violation  of  national  justice,  faith,  or 
honor,"  and  declared  that,  while  foreign  pos- 
13 


194  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

session  or  control  of  them  had  **  hindered  the 
growth  and  impaired  the  influence  of  the  United 
States,''  **  chronic  revolution  and  anarchy 
would  be  equally  injurious."  A  joint  resolu- 
tion was  introduced  in  the  House  of  Eepresen- 
tatives  for  the  annexation  of  the  Dominican 
Eepublic.  An  agent  from  Santo  Domingo  was 
then  in  Washington  awaiting  action.  The  pro- 
ject was  warmly  espoused  by  President  Grant, 
and  on  November  29,  1869,  two  treaties  were 
concluded,  one  for  the  annexation  of  the  Domin- 
ican Eepublic  and  the  other  for  the  lease  of 
Samana  Bay.  Both  instruments  were  communi- 
cated to  the  Senate  on  January  10,  1870.  They 
failed  to  receive  that  body's  approval,  special 
and  temporary  causes  contributing  to  the  result. 
In  his  last  annual  message  to  Congress,  in 
1876,  President  Grant  recurred  to  the  subject, 
reaffirming  his  belief  in  the  wisdom  of  the  policy 
that  he  had  proposed.  In  the  plan  to  obtain  the 
cession  of  islands  in  the  West  Indies,  the  Dan- 
ish possessions  were  not  overlooked.  A  con- 
vention for  the  cession  of  St.  Thomas  and  St. 
John  for  $7,500,000,  leaving  Santa  Cruz  to  Den- 
mark, was  signed  at  Copenhagen  on  October  24, 
1867.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States,  per- 
haps not  uninfluenced  by  an  earthquake  and 


EXPANSION  195 

tidal  wave  in  the  islands,  failed  to  approve  the 
treaty.  January  24,  1902,  a  convention  was 
signed  at  Washington  for  the  cession  of  St. 
Thomas,  St.  John,  and  Santa  Cruz,  with  the 
adjacent  islands  and  rocks,  all  for  $5,000,000. 
It  was  approved  by  the  Senate.  It  was  also 
approved  by  the  lower  house  of  the  Danish 
Eigsdag,  but  failed  in  the  upper  house  by  an 
even  division.  The  Mole  St.  Nicolas,  in  Haiti, 
was  leased  by  the  United  States  during  the 
Civil  War  as  a  naval  station,  but  the  Haitian 
government  in  1891  declined  to  let  the  harbor 
again  for  a  similar  purpose. 

In  spite  of  the  process  of  continuous  expan- 
sion, which  the  survey  of  the  history  of  the 
United  States  discloses,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  there  exists  among  the  American  people 
a  prevalent  belief  that  they  are  characterized 
above  all  things  by  freedom  from  territorial 
ambitions  and  a  peculiarly  peace-loving  disposi- 
tion. And  yet,  what  is  there  in  the  history  or 
antecedents  of  the  American  people  to  justify 
the  presupposition  that  they  are  not  only 
unaggressive  but  that  they  shrink  from  con- 
flict and  are  perversely  and  incorrigibly 
peaceful?  Is  it  found  in  the  fact  that  they 
have    conquered    and    subdued    a    continent? 


196  AMEBICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

Is  it  derived  from  the  fact  that  the  terri- 
tory which  they  now  hold,  and  which  has 
been  acquired  largely  as  the  result  of  war, 
is  &ve  times  as  great  as  that  of  the  imperial 
domain  with  which  they  began  their  national 
career  I  Is  it  inferred  from  the  circumstance 
that,  since  they  forcibily  established  their  inde- 
pendence, by  an  armed  conflict  of  nearly  eight 
years,  they  have  waged  four  foreign  wars,  three 
general  and  one  limited,  and  the  greatest  civil 
war  in  history!  Have  we  forgotten  the  clamor 
for  intervention,  which  is  only  another  name  for 
war,  between  Spain  and  Cuba,  in  1898?  Have 
we  ceased  to  recall  the  cry  ^'  Eemember  the 
Maine,''  the  denunciations  of  the  system  of  con- 
centration, and  the  harsh  criticisms  and 
rough  impugnments  of  the  conduct  of  a  peace- 
loving  President,  when,  after  stemming  for  a 
year  the  rising  tide  of  popular  feeling,  he  de- 
layed for  a  few  days  the  submission  of  the  ques- 
tion of  war  to  Congress,  in  order  that  Ameri- 
cans might  have  an  opportunity  to  leave  Cuba? 
The  impression  which  more  or  less  prevails 
in  every  nation  that  it  desires  peace  more  than 
other  nations  do  can  be  regarded  only  as  an- 
other example  of  that  tendency  to  self-delusion 
which  is  worldwide  in  its  operation  and  is  one 


EXPANSION  197 

of  the  commonest  manifestations  of  everyday 
life.  Not  long  ago  I  had  the  pleasure  of  listen- 
ing to  an  eminent  Hungarian  statesman,  who 
made  eloquent  addresses  in  various  parts  of  the 
United  States  in  favor  of  peace,  and  who  ap- 
peared to  be  specially  confident  of  just  two 
things,  and  these  were  the  peaceful  disposition 
of  his  own  people  and  the  peaceful  disposition 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  As  I  lis- 
tened to  these  gratifying  assurances,  I  could 
not  help  recalling  how,  scarcely  two  years  be- 
fore, I  had  witnessed  at  rather  close  range  the 
impressive  and  unmistakable  manifestation  by 
the  speaker's  own  people,  by  articles  in  the 
press,  by  speeches,  by  the  liberal  voting  of  mili- 
tary credits  and  the  marshaling  of  warlike 
agencies,  of  a  lively  disposition  to  administer 
an  effective  and  perhaps  absorptive  rebuke  to 
the  neighboring  kingdom  of  Servia,  which,  ap- 
parently fearing  that  its  own  independence  was 
menaced,  vigorously  protested  against  the  un- 
expected annexation  of  Bosnia  and  Herzego- 
vina by  the  Imperial-Eoyal  Government  of 
Austria-Hungary.  Nor  did  the  speaker  fail  to 
draw  a  comparison  between  Prussia,  armed  to 
the  teeth  and  therefore  presumably  panting  for 
war,  and  the  United  States,  unarmed  and  there- 


; 


198  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

fore  presumably  panting  for  peace,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  since  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic 
wars,  when  Prussia  again  became  master  of 
her  own  destinies,  her  wars  have  scarcely  ex- 
ceeded in  number  those  of  the  United  States, 
even  excluding  from  the  computation  the  lat- 
ter's  Indian  wars.  To  say  that,  after  making 
the  same  exclusion,  the  years  spent  by  Prussia, 
during  the  same  period,  in  war,  stand  to  those 
similarly  spent  by  the  United  States  hardly  in 
the  proportion  of  one  to  two,  would  be  unfair, 
since  Prussia's  preparedness  has  enabled  her 
to  make  her  wars  short. 

It  is  often  loosely  asserted  and  probably  is  gen- 
erally believed,  not  only  that  the  United  States 
is  the  foremost  advocate,  but  also  that  it  has  al- 
ways been  the  invariable  practical  exponent,  of 
the  principle  of  international  arbitration;  and 
in  proof  of  this  assertion,  the  large  number  of 
cases  to  which  the  United  States  has  been  a 
party  is  cited.  In  reasoning  thus,  two  facts  are 
overlooked.  One  is  that  in  every  case  there 
have  been  two  parties,  and  that  Great  Britain, 
who  is  so  often  spoken  of  as  a  warlike  power, 
has  been  a  party  to  many  of  them,  and  has  her- 
self had  as  many  arbitrations  as  the  United 
States,  if  not  more.    The  second  is  that  the 


EXPANSION  199 

United  States  has  not  always  agreed  to  the 
arbitral  settlement  of  its  own  disputes.  Even 
apart  from  disputes  which  have,  like  those  re- 
lated to  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  involved  ques- 
tions of  national  policy,  the  United  States  has 
not  always  accepted  arbitration  as  a  mode  of 
settlement.  **  Six  times,"  declared  George 
Bancroft,  as  agent  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
case  of  the  San  Juan  Water  Boundary,  **  the 
United  States  had  received  the  offer  of  arbitra- 
tion on  their  northwestern  boundary,  and  six 
times  had  refused  to  refer  a  point  where  the 
importance  was  so  great,  and  the  right  so 
clear."  And  it  was  only  when  Great  Britain 
consented,  in  1872,  to  a  qualified  or  restricted 
submission  of  the  point  in  dispute,  that  the 
United  States  agreed  to  refer  it  to  the  German 
Emperor.  The  British  offers  between  1854 
and  1858  to  arbitrate  the  differences  as  to  the 
meaning  of  certain  clauses  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  were  firmly  declined.  The  pro- 
posal of  Great  Britain  for  the  submission  of 
the  Bering  Sea  dispute  to  arbitration  was  made 
long  before  it  was  accepted.  We  refused  to 
arbitrate  the  case  of  the  **  Maine  "  in  any  of  its 
aspects,  both  before  and  after  the  war.  Even 
after  the  demand  upon  Great  Britain  in  1895 


200  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

for  the  unrestricted  submission  to  arbitration 
of  the  Venezuelan  boundary  question,  the  Onley- 
Pauncefote  treaty  of  January  1897,  which  was 
intended  to  carry  arbitration  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain  to  what  were 
conceived  to  be  the  widest  practicable  limits, 
provided  for  the  submission  of  territorial  ques- 
tions to  a  tribunal  which  was  not  in  a  proper 
sense  arbitral,  but  which  was  to  be  so  organ- 
ized that  it  could  not  render  a  decision,  unless 
one  or  more  of  the  members  appointed  by  one 
party  should  decide  in  favor  of  the  other.  It 
was  only  to  such  a  tribunal  that  the  United 
States  consented  to  submit  the  Alaskan  bound- 
ary question.  Fortunately,  Lord  Alverstone, 
Chief-Justice  of  England,  rose  to  the  full 
measure  of  his  opportunity,  and  enabled  the 
tribunal  to  render  a  decision.  We  declined  the 
request  of  Colombia  for  the  arbitration  of  the 
controversy  as  to  the  Eepublic  of  Panama  and 
the  Canal  Zone.  It  is  needless  to  extend  the 
enumeration. 

It  is,  in  reality,  a  common  error  to  confound 
what  is  called  militarism,  referring  to  the 
maintenance  of  large  standing  armies  by  con- 
scription, with  the  existence  of  a  militant  spirit, 
and  to  assume  that  the  latter  is  produced  by 


EXPANSION  201 

the  former.  Among  intelligent  and  candid 
men,  one  can  scarcely  run  the  risk  of  being  un- 
derstood to  advocate  great  armaments  for  their 
own  sake,  who  affirms  that  the  connection  is  at 
least  greatly  exaggerated.  A  sense  of  super- 
iority, or  of  superior  strength,  military  or 
otherwise,  no  doubt  may  induce  a  government 
more  readily  to  assume  an  aggressive  position, 
and  may  tend  to  develop  a  certain  brusqueness 
or  even  arrogance  of  manner.  We  may  also 
concede  that  it  would  be  an  advantage  to  the 
world,  as  well  as  a  beneficent  relief  to  particu- 
lar countries,  if  there  should  be  brought  about 
such  a  limitation  of  armaments  as  would  re- 
sult in  a  substantial  abatement  of  military  pre- 
parations. But,  admitting  all  this  to  be  so,  it 
nevertheless  remains  true  that  the  nations  of 
Europe,  with  large  military  establishments,  are 
by  no  means  so  warlike  or  so  intent  upon  war 
as  is  habitually  asserted  or  assumed  by  those 
who  denounce  their  military  system.  The 
subject  has  another  side.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  an  occasional  military  parade,  or  a  few 
weeks  spent  in  the  summer  at  a  seaside  resort 
for  drill  and  social  diversion,  may  create  illu- 
sions with  regard  to  war  and  encourage  a  mili- 
tary spirit;  but  such  is  not  the  life  of  the 


202  AMERICAN  DEVELOPMENT 

conscript.  The  monotonous  and  self-denying 
routine  of  the  barracks,  the  daily  drills  and 
marches,  the  performance  of  the  severe  and 
exacting  duties  of  the  camp  and  the  field,  and 
the  discharge  of  all  the  functions  of  military 
life  except  that  of  actual  battle,  do  not  tend  to 
create  the  illusion  that  war  is  a  dress  parade 
or  a  pastime.  On  the  contrary,  the  conscript 
learns  that,  quite  apart  from  the  chances  of 
death,  war  is  a  serious  and  onerous  business. 
Nor  are  war  and  its  chances  and  hardships  im- 
pressed upon  him  alone.  The  dread  realities 
are  brought  to  the  consciousness  of  every  family 
in  the  land,  so  that  the  entire  population  is 
made  to  feel  that,  if  conflict  comes,  every  home 
must  offer  its  sacrifice  and  make  its  contribu- 
tion. The  great  standing  armies  of  Europe  to- 
day are  not  the  hireling  forces  by  which,  in 
former  times,  absolute  rulers  sought  to  accom- 
plish their  ambitious  purposes.  They  are  the 
people  themselves,  drawn  from  and  represent- 
ing the  masses,  and  are  for  the  most  part  cre- 
ated and  maintained  in  the  belief  that,  while  the 
system  has  a  disciplinary  and  educational 
value,  its  object  is  essentially  defensive. 

It  is  important  that  the  truth  with  regard  to 
this  subject  should  be  candidly  stated  and  cor- 


EXPANSION  203 

rectly  apprehended,  not  only  in  order  that  mis- 
taken and  injurious  criticism  of  others  may  be 
avoided,  but  also  in  order  that  the  human  pro- 
pensity towards  self-assumption  of  superior 
virtue  may  not  be  falsely  encouraged.  Ques-' 
tions  of  war  and  of  peace  depend,  and  will 
continue  to  depend,  not  so  much  upon  the  size 
of  military  establishments  as  upon  the  culti- 
vation of  the  spirit  and  habit  of  justice,  of  self- 
control,  of  reciprocal  recognition  of  rights  and 
of  forbearance.  If  these  things  be  not  prac- 
ticed ;  if  impatience  takes  the  place  of  delibera- 
tion; if  insistent  and  one-sided  demands  are 
substituted  for  measures  of  accommodation;  if 
troubled  situations  are  permitted  to  furnish  the 
occasion  for  exceptional  exactions;  if  differ- 
ences in  race  and  in  national  traits  and  cus- 
toms are  made  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  un- 
friendly criticism,  railing  accusations  and  vio- 
lent suspicions — then  all  plans  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  peace  will  prove  to  be  as  so  much  waste 
paper.  Outside  the  state,  just  as  within  the 
state,  peace  will  be  permanently  preserved  only 
by  carrying  into  our  dealings  one  with  an- 
other the  sentiment  of  fraternity  and  the  spirit 
of  conciliation. 


INDEX 

Abolitionists,  101;  effects  of  agitation,  101-103. 

Adams,  John,  views  as  to  confiscated  debts,  23;  minister  to 

England,  26. 
Adams,  John  Quincy,  formulation  of  Monroe  Doctrine,  138; 

Florida  treaty,  167,  179 ;  Texas,  167,  168. 
Alaska,  acquisition  of,  181. 
Alliance  with  France,  19. 
Amendments  to  U.  S.  Constitution,  first  ten,  40-41;  thirteenth, 

129 ;  fourteenth,  58,  132 ;  fifteenth,  133. 
American  people,  characteristics,  12-13,  41-42,  195;  jealousy  of 

authority,  47;  individualism,  47;  democracy,  47. 
American  Eevolution,  14;  democratic  movement,  48,  70. 
Arbitration,  International,  198-200. 
Aristocracy,  decline,  48. 
Army,  power  to  raise,  34. 
Articles  of  Confederation,  19 ;  tendency  towards  separatism,  25- 

27;   non-national  character  of  government  under,   29-32; 

provision  for  incorporation  of  Canada,  151. 
Astor,  John  Jacob,  fur-trading  post  at  Astoria,  179. 
Austria-Hungary,    Hungarian    revolution,    86;    annexation    of 

Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  197. 

Baden,  right  of  legation,  45. 

Balance  of  power,  introduction  of  principle  in  slavery  contro- 
versies, 105. 

Bancroft,  George,  minister  to  Baden,  45;  naturalization  trea- 
ties, 90. 

Bank,  power  to  incorporate,  67. 

Bankruptcies,  laws  concerning,  34. 

Barbe  Marbois,  and  Louisiana  cession,  158. 

Bayard,  T.  F.,  Secretary  of  State,  action  in  Samoa,  189. 

Beaumarchais,  diplomatic  activities,  17, 

205 


206  INDEX 

Bermuda  Islands,  150. 

Bills  of  rights,  72;  first  ten  Amendments,  41. 

Bismarck,  on  German  constitution,  45;  Samoa,  189. 

Black,  J.  S.,  on  State  coercion,  114. 

Blackstone,  Natural  law  and  validity  of  legislation,  80. 

Blockade  of  Southern  ports,  119,  120. 

Bosnia,  annexation  by  Austria-Hungary,  197. 

Boundaries,  Lnited  States,  21-22;  State,  31. 

Brooks  Islands,  acquisition  of,  190. 

Buchanan,  James,  doctrine  of  expatriation,  89-90;  attitude  as 

President  on  secession,  108,  110-117. 
Burgoyne,  capture  of,  19. 

Calhoun,  change  of  attitude,  106. 

California,  acquisition  of,  172,  173-175. 

Campbell,  James,  independence  of  Greece,  85. 

Canada,  proposed  acquisition  of,  151,  175-176,  192. 

Canal,  Interoceanic.     See  Interoceanic  canal. 

Canal  Zone,  acquisition  of,  192,  200. 

Cas3,  GeL.,  on  State  coercion,  115. 

Causative  facts,  5,  11,  12. 

Centralization,  tendency  towards,  in  United  States,  43,  45-46, 

135,  136;  in  Switzerland,  43;  in  Germany,  45. 
Chicago  Strike,  136. 
Citizenship,  in  TJ.  S.,  25,  30,  58,  59,  132;  in  Switzerland,  42; 

in  Germany,  44. 
Civil  Eights  Act,  131,  134. 

Clark,  Champ,  on  annexation  of  Canada,  175-176. 
Clayton,  John  M.,  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  144. 
Cleveland,  President,  action  in  Chicago  Strike,  136-137;  case  of 

Venezuelan  boundary,  139,  141. 
Colonial  charters,  aristocratic  character,  48. 
Colonial  system,  13 ;  emancipation  from,  85. 
Commerce,  centralizing  influences,  43,  45-46,  135,  136. 
Commerce,  power  of  Congress  over,  33,  67. 
Commercial  restrictions,  13. 
Committees  of  Correspondence,  14. 
Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  20. 
Common  Law,  58-66. 
Common  Sense,  Paine 's,  15. 


INBEX  207 

Doncord,  Battle  of,  14. 

Confederation.     See  Articles  of  Confederation. 

Confiscation  of  debts,  23,  26,  27,  40. 

Confiscation  Acts,  125. 

Congress,  Continental.     See  Continental  Congress. 

Congress,  U.  S.,  power  over  commerce,  33,  67;  over  territories, 
39;  over  rules  of  decision,  56-57;  meeting  and  adjourn- 
ment, 37;  extra  session,  of  1861,  119;  Confiscation  Acts, 
125;  suspension  of  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  126;  Eecon- 
®truction  Acts,  131-133. 

Connecticut,  suffrage  in,  73. 

Conscription,  200-203. 

Constitution,  German  Empire,  44-46. 

Constitution,  Swiss,  42-44. 

Constitution,  IT.  S.,  27;  national  union,  28,  32-40;  federalistic 
rather  than  democratic,  40-41,  54-55 ;  supremacy  over  legis- 
lation, 80;  provisions  as  to  slavery,  98,  104-105;  attitude 
of  Abolitionists,  101;  absence  of  State-coercive  provision, 
115;  departures  from  during  Civil  War,  126;  Thirteenth 
Amendment,  129;  Fourteenth  Amendment,  58,  132;  Fif- 
teenth Amendment,  133 ;  expansion  of  powers,  143-146. 

Constitutions,  State,  subordinate  character,  39-40;  supremacy 
over  local  legislation,  80. 

Continental  Congress,  14,  16,  17,  18,  20;  powers  as  to  war  and 
peace,  24;  looked  to  absorption  of  British  possessions  in 
North  America,  150. 

Contract,  Social.     See  Social  Contract. 

Contracts,  impairment  of,  68-69. 

Copyrights,  34. 

Corporations,  acts  of  incorporation,  68-69. 

Cotton-gin,  and  slavery,  98. 

Council  of  States,  Switzerland,  42-43. 

Counterfeiting,  punishment,  34. 

Courts,  invalidation  of  legislative  acts,  80;  declare  Missouri 
Compromise  unconstitutional,  17;  prevented  from  decid- 
ing upon  constitutionality  of  Eeconstruction  Acts,  132. 

Courts,  State,  popular  election  of  judges,  76-82;  **  recall,  *'  82. 

Courts,  U.  S.,  establishment  of,  34;  appointment  of  judges,  37; 
jurisdiction,  38,  56;  question  as  to  common-law  jurisdic- 
tion, 58-66. 


208  INDEX 

Cri:  les,  jimscliction  of,  59-66. 
Cuba,  attempted  acquisition,  192-193. 
Culebra  and  Culebrita,  acquisition,  193. 

Danish  Islands,  attempts  to  acquire,  194-195. 

Dartmouth  College  Case,  68-69. 

Debts,  Payment  of,  to  British  subjects,  22-24,  26,  27,  40. 

Declaration  of  Independence,  16;  permeated  with  theory  of 
natural  rights,  52;  fundamental  importance,  historically, 
53-54 ;  embodied  in  State  constitutions,  71 ;  doctrine  of  ex- 
patriation, 89. 

Delaware,  Suffrage  in,  73 ;  qualifications  for  office,  75-76. 

Democracy,  47-95;  conditions  and  progress,  47;  doctrine  of 
natural  rights,  49,  71-72;  Declaration  of  Independence,  52; 
republican  forms,  54 ;  popular  tide,  55 ;  States  *  Rights,  56 ; 
Judiciary  Act,  57;  questions  of  common-law  jurisdiction, 
58;  conservatism  of  Supreme  Court,  66;  popular  methods 
in  election  of  President,  70;  popular  revolution  in  States, 
71 ;  extension  of  suffrage,  72-75 ;  removal  of  restrictions  on 
holding  office,  75-76;  popular  election  of  judges,  76;  ''re- 
call," 82;  common  school  system,  84;  conduct  of  foreign 
affairs,  84-95;  sympathy  with  self-government,  85;  revo- 
lutions in  South  America,  85;  independence  of  Greece,  85; 
opposition  to  Holy  Alliance,  86;  overthrow  of  monarchy  in 
France,  86;  Kossuth  and  Hungarian  revolution,  86-88; 
diplomatic  dress,  88;  doctrine  of  expatriation,  90;  nation- 
alism, 90-91 ;  War  of  1812,  92 ;  Monroe  Doctrine,  92 ;  Mex- 
ican War,  93-94 ;  Nationalism,  94-95,  126-128. 

Democratic  Party,  origin  and  progress,  76. 

Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  20,  21. 

Dewey,  Admiral,  destruction  of  Spanish  fleet,  185. 

Dickinson,  John,  advocates  a  constitution,  70. 

Diplomatic  Dress,  88. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  debate  with  Lincoln,  94. 

Dred  Scott  Case,  28,  59,  107. 

Dress,  Diplomatic.     See  Diplomatic  Dress. 

East  Florida,  162,  163-166,  167. 
Election  of  judges,  76-82. 
Elective  franchise.     See  Suffrage. 


INDBX  209 

Emancipation,  129;  societies,  100. 

Europe,  political  and  commercial  interests,  20;  examples  of 
federal  union,  42-46;  military  system,  200-203. 

Everett,  Edward,  lauds  acquisitive  diplomacy,  179-180. 

Executive  power,  Articles  of  Confederation,  31;  Constitution 
of  United  States,  36;  in  Switzerland,  42. 

Expansion,  147;  early  contests,  149;  proposed  absorption  of 
British  North  America,  150 ;  Articles  of  Confederation  and 
Canada,  151;  treaty  of  peace,  151;  acquisition  of  Louisi- 
ana, 152;  the  Floridas,  160-167,  179;  Texas,  167-172; 
California  and  New  Mexico,  172;  Gadsden  purchase,  173; 
Slavery  question,  173;  Manifest  Destiny,  175-178;  the 
Oregon  territory,  178;  Alaska,  181;  Hawaii,  182;  Spanish 
West  Indies,  Philippines,  Guam,  183-187,  193;  islands  in 
Samoa,  187-190;  Horse-shoe  Reef,  190;  Brooks  or  Midway 
Islands,  190;  Guano  Islands,  191;  Canal  Zone,  192;  at- 
tempted acquisitions,  192-195;  popular  suppositions,  195- 
196. 

Expatriation,  89-91. 

Family  Compact,  17. 

Fatalists,  9,  10. 

Fathers,  The,  wisdom  and  work,  28-29;  alleged  inconsisten- 
cies, 54. 

Federal  Assembly,  Swiss.  42,  43. 

Federal  Council,  Swiss,  42. 

Federal  Unions,  Germany  and  Switzerland,  42-46. 

Federalism,  1-46 ;  tendency  towards  relaxed,  25 ;  high  tide,  47. 

Federalist  Party,  decline,  69-70. 

Fifteenth  Amendment,  133. 

Fifty-four-forty  or  fight,  179. 

Fisheries,  Northeastern,  22. 

Floridas,  acquisition,  160-167. 

Foreign  Affairs,  16,  17,  18,  20;  revolutions  in  South  America, 
85;  independence  of  Greece,  85;  opposition  to  Holy  Alli- 
ance, 86 ;  revolutions  in  France,  86 ;  Hungary  and  Kossuth, 
86-88;  diplomatic  dress,  88;  doctrine  of  expatriation,  90; 
nationalism,  90-91;  Monroe  Doctrine,  92;  influence  of 
slavery,  93 ;  Mexican  war,  93-94 ;  development  of  imperial- 
istic tendencies,   137-146;    policy   of  expansion,   147-204. 

14 


210  INDEX 

See  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  and  Department  of  For- 
eign Affairs. 

Foreign  intercourse,  conduct  of,  37. 

Fort  Sumter,  firing  on,  118. 

Fourteenth  Amendment,  58,  132. 

France,  and  American  Eevolution,  17,  19;  treaty  of  alliance, 
150. 

Franchise,  Elective.     See  Suffrage. 

Franklin,  comments  on  Continental  Congress,  18;  on  coniSsca- 
tion  of  debts,  23. 

Freedmen,  invested  with  the  elective  franchise,  131,  133. 

Freedom,  Political,  13. 

Fugitives  from  justice,  39. 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  101. 

George  III,  14,  36. 

Georgia,  suffrage  in,  73 ;  popular  election  of  judges,  77. 

Germany,  federal  union,  42,  44-46;  naturalization  treaties,  90; 

nationalism,  91 ;  Samoan  Islands,  189. 
Gladstone,  encomium  on  Constitution,  27. 
Gouvemeur,  Mrs.  Reminiscences,  85-86. 
Grant,  President,  attempt  to  annex  Santo  Domingo,  194. 
Great  Britain,  treaty  of  peace  with,  21. 
Greece,  independence,  85. 
Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  Treaty  of,  172. 
Guam,  acquisition  of,  183-187. 
Guano  Islands,  191. 

Habeas  Corpus,  suspension  of,  121-124. 

Haiti,  independence,  92 ;  lease  of  Mole  St.  Nicolas,  195. 

Hawaii,  annexation,  182. 

Henry,  Patrick,  national  sentiments,  27. 

Henfield,  Case  of,  61. 

Herzegovina,  annexation  by  Austria-Hungary,  197. 

His9,  Elijah,  unratified  treaty  with  Nicaragua,  143. 

Historian,  functions,  5,  10,  11,  12. 

History,  as  popularly  conceived,  9. 

Holy  Alliance,  failure  of  plans,  90. 

Horse-Shoe  Reef,  acquisition,  190. 

Howe,  Senator,  applauds  disregard  of  laws,  125. 


INDEX  211 

Hudson  and  Goodwin,  Case  of,  59,  65. 

Hungarian  revolution,  excitement  in  United  States,  86-88.  See 
Austria-Hungary. 

Imperialism,  96;  democratic  progress  and  slavery,  96-101;  abo- 
litionism, 101-105;  principle  of  balance  of  power,  105-107; 
Dred  Scott  Case,  and  invalidation  of  Missouri  Compromise, 
107 ;  election  of  Lincoln  as  President,  108 ;  secession  move- 
ment, 108;  defects  in  federal  legislation,  109-110;  Bu- 
chanan's ineffectual  appeals  to  Congress,  110-117;  inaugu- 
ration of  Lincoln,  117;  firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  117-118; 
call  for  troops,  118;  proclamation  of  blockade,  119;  sus- 
pension of  habeas  corpus,  121;  virtual  dictatorship,  124; 
demand  for  preservation  of  Union,  126-128;  Congressional 
rejection  of  policy  of  restoration  of  Southern  States,  129- 
131;  military  reconstruction,  131-132;  adoption  of  Four- 
teenth and  Fifteenth  Amendments,  132-133;  permanent 
effects  of  assumptions  of  power,  134;  centralizing  influ- 
ences of  commerce,  135;  Chicago  Strike,  136;  developments 
of  Monroe  Doctrine,  137-146. 

Indian  tribes,  regulation  of  commerce  with,  33. 

Independence,  Declaration  of.    See  Declaration  of  Independence. 

Individualism,  growl^h,  47,  48-49;  non-sectional,  105. 

Insurrection,  suppression,  34. 

Interoceanie  canal,  development  of  idea  of  American  control, 
143. 

Interstate  Commerce  Act,  135. 

*  *  Irrepressible  Conflict, ' '  107. 

Italy,  nationalism,  91. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  nationalism  and  democracy,  95. 

Jacobi,  A.,  91. 

Jay,  John,  views  as  to  confiscated  debts,  23;  on  federal  juris- 
diction of  crimes,  62;  Manifest  Destiny,  176-178. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  advocates  a  constitution,  70;  reprobation  of 
slavery,  98;  on  importance  of  Louisiana,  154-155. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  elected  Vice-President,  128;  succeeds  Lincoln 
as  President,  129;  policy  of  restoration,  129  130;  recom- 
mends acquisition  of  West  India  islands,  193. 

Judges,  election  of,  76. 


212  INDEX 

Judicial  power,  lacking  under  Articles  of  Confederation,  31  j 
under  U.  S.  Constitution,  34,  38-39,  40;  Judiciary  Act  of 
1789,  56;  over  crimes,  59-66. 

Judiciary  Act  of  1789,  56-57. 

Jurisdiction,  U.  S.  Courts,  38 ;  question  as  to  common  law,  59-66. 

Kossuth,  Louis,  excitement  in  United  States,  86-88. 

Labrador,  fisheries,  22. 

Latin-America,  relations  with,  92. 

Laurens,  Henry,  peace  plenipotentiary,  24. 

Lausanne,  seat  of  Swiss  Supreme  uourt,  43. 

Law  of  nations,  34. 

Law,  uniformity,  43. 

Lee,  Eobert  E.,  not  an  owner  of  slaves,  99. 

Lee,  R.  K.,  on  Paine 's  Common  Sense,  15. 

Legal  tender,  35. 

Legislative  power,  Articles  of  Confederation,  29-31;  U.  S.  Con- 
stitution, 32-36;  in  Switzerland,  42-43. 

Le::ington,  Battle  of,  14. 

Liberator,  newspaper,  101-102. 

Liberty,  Political,  13. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  opposition  to  Mexican  War,  94;  reprobation 
of  Abolitionists,  102;  election  as  President,  108;  concilia- 
tory efforts,  117;  firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  117-118;  call  for 
troops,  118;  proclamation  of  blockade,  119-121;  suspen- 
sion of  habeas  corpus,  121-124,  126;  exercise  of  extra- 
ordinary powers,  124;  object  of  preserving  the  Union,  126- 
128;  re-election  as  candidate  of  Union  Party,  128;  efforts 
at  restoration  in  Louisiana  and  Arkansas,  128-129;  eman- 
cipation, 129;  policy  of  restoration  of  seceding  States, 
129-130. 

Livingston,  Kobert  R.,  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  21 ;  Louisi- 
ana purchase,  154-160. 

Loveii,  John,  on  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  20. 

Madison,  James,  distinguishes  republic  from  democracy,  55; 
advocates  a  constitution,  70;  anti-slavery  sentiments,  98; 
on  navigation  of  Mississippi,  152;  message  on  occupation 
of  the  Floridas,  161. 


INDEX  213 

Magdalen  Islands,  fisheries,  22. 

Manifest  Destiny,  175-178,  183. 

Mansfield,  Lord,  decision  in  Sommersett 's  case,  97. 

Marcy,  William  L.,  circular  on  diplomatic  dress,  88-89  j  attempt 

to  annex  Hawaii,  183. 
Marque  and  Keprisal,  Letters  of,  34,  35. 
Marshall,  federal  influence,  63,  68. 
Maryland,    declaration    of    natural   rights,    72;    suffrage,    74; 

qualifications  for  office,  75-76. 
Massachusetts,   suffrage,    74;    qualifications   for   office,    75-76; 

status  of  early  Democrats,  89. 
Matthews,  Gen.  Geo.,  proceedings  in  East  Florida,  163-166. 
McCardle  's  case,  132. 

Meade,  Commander,  Samoan  agreement,  188. 
Merryman,  Case  of,  122. 
Mexican  war,  93,  169-172. 
Midway  Islands.     See  Brooks  Islands. 
Militarism,  200-203. 
Militia,  34. 
Mississippi,    river,    navigation,    26;    Spain  ^s   exclusive   claims, 

152-154. 
Mississippi,  State,  popular  election  of  judges,  77. 
Missouri  Compromise,  105;  declared  unconstitutional,  107. 
Mole  St.  Nicolas,  lease  of,  195. 
Money,  regulation  of,  34,  35. 
Monopoly,  Commercial,  13. 

Monroe,  joined  with  Livingston  in  Louisiana  negotiation,  157. 
Monroe  Doctrine,  origin,  92;  occupation  of  the  Moridas,  161; 

developments  since  1860,  137;  Venezuelan  boundary,  139; 

Santo  Domingo,  141 ;  interoceanic  canal,  143. 
Moralist,  Historical,  5,  11. 

Napoleon,  decision  to  sell  Louisiana,  158. 

National  Council,  Swiss,  43. 

National  Union,  22,  26,  28,  32-40. 

Nationalism,  spirit  of,  47,  90,  94-95;  preservation  of  the  Union, 

126-128. 
Natural  law,  theory  of  Blackstone,  80. 
Natural  Eights,  doctrine,  50-52;  in  State  constitutions,  71-72; 

relation  to  slavery,  97,  102. 


214  INDEX 

Naturalization,  regulation,  33-34  j  treaties,  90. 

Navy,  power  to  provide  and  maintain,  34. 

Negro  supremacy,  failure,  133. 

Neutrality,  Henfield's  Case,  61. 

Newfoundland,  Banks  of,  fishery  rights,  22. 

New  Hampshire,  suffrage  in,  74;  qualifications  for  office,  75-76. 

New  Jersey,  suffrage  in,  74;  qualifications  for  office,  75-76. 

New  Mexico,  acquisition,  172,  173-175. 

New   ifork,  doctrine  of  natural  rights,  72;  religious  tests,  73; 

qualifications  for  office,  75-76. 
Nicaragua,  Hise  treaty,  143, 
Norfolk,  Burning  of,  14-15. 
North  Carolina,  doctrine  of  natural  rights,   72;  suffrage,  74; 

qualifications  for  office,  75-76;  secession,  117,  119. 
Nova  Scotia,  fisheries,  22. 

Olney,  Kichard,  Secretary  of  State,  declaration  as  to  Monroe 

Doctrine,  139 ;  conservative  attitude  as  to  Cuba,  140. 
Optimists,  9,  10. 

Oregon,  ''recall"  of  judges,  82. 
Oregon  territory,  acquisition,  178. 

Pago-Pago,  Harbor  of,  in  Samoa,  188. 

Paine,  Thomas,  Common  Sense,  15;  secretary  to  Committee  of 

Foreign  Affairs,  20. 
Panama,  Eepublic  of,  145 ;  cession  of  Canal  Zone,  192. 
Patents,  34. 

Peace,  Treaty  of,  with  Great  Britain,  21-24;  non-execution,  26. 
Pennsylvania,    doctrine    of    natural   rights,    72;    suffrage,    74  j 

qualifications  for  office,  75-76. 
Pessimists,  9,  10. 
Philippine  Islands,  148,  183-187. 
Pinkney,  William,  and  Dartmouth  College  Case,  69. 
Piracy,  34. 
Poik;,  President,  and  Mexican  War,  169-172,  174-175;  Oregon 

treaty,  179 ;  Yucatan  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  138,  139. 
Portugal,  and  American  Kevolution,  17,  18. 
Post  Offices,  34. 
Post  Beads,  34. 
President,  Swiss,  42. 


INDEX  215 

President,  United  States,  powers,  36-37;  nomination  and  elec- 
tion, 70.     See  Executive  power. 
Prize  Oases,  116. 
Providentialists,  9,  10. 
Prussia,  wars,  197-198. 

Kailroads,  federal  ownership,  Switzerland,  43. 

Keeall  of  judges,  82. 

Eeconstruetion,  Lincoln's  policy  of  restoration,  128;  John- 
son's continuance  of,  129;  change  of  Congressional  atti- 
tude, 129-131;  military  reconstruction,  131-133;  failure  of 
negro  supremacy,  133-134. 

Religious  tests,  73,  74. 

Republic,  distinguished  from  democracy,  55. 

Republican  form  of  government,  guaranteed  to  States,  39. 

Republican  party,  early,  70;  second,  fusion  during  Civil  War, 
127-128. 

Restoration,  policy  of  Lincoln  and  Johnson,  128-129. 

Revolution,  American.     See  American  Revolution. 

Revolution,  French.     See  French  Revolution. 

Revolutions  in  South  America,  85. 

Rhode  Island,  suffrage,  74. 

Rights,  Natural.     See  Natural  Rights. 

Roosevelt,  President,  application  of  Monroe  Doctrine  in  case  of 
Santo  Domingo,  141;  interoceanic  canal,  145. 

Rush,  Dr.,  on  Paine 's  Common  Sense,  15. 

Samana  Bay,  attempt  to  acquire,  193,  194. 

Samoan  Islands,  acquisitions  in,  187-190. 

San  Ildef onso,  Treaty  of,  155. 

Santa  Cruz,  Island  of.     See  Danish  Islands. 

Santo  Domingo,  independence,  93;  attempt  to  annex,  193-194; 

Monroe  Doctrine,  141-143. 
Schouler,  James,  lawyer  and  historian,  5. 
Schurz,  Carl,  91. 

Scott,  Dred.     See  Dred  Scott  Case. 
Secession,  led  by  South  Carolina,  108,  110. 
Seminole  war,  167. 

Senate,  U.  S.,  result  of  compromise,  32. 
Sequestration.    See  Confiscation  of  debts. 


216  INDEX 

Seward,  W.  H.,  Kossuth  banquet,  88;  advocates  acquisitions  in 
the  West  Indies,  193. 

Slaughter  House  cases,  134. 

Slave  trade,  prohibition,  35. 

Slavery,  and  Declaration  of  Independence,  54;  influence  on 
foreign  relations,  02,  173;  Mexican  war,  93;  controversies, 
96-100;  abolitionist  agitation,  101-105;  principle  of  bal- 
ance of  power,  105;  Missouri  Gompromise,  107;  emancipa- 
tion, 129;  ''Manifest  Destiny,^'  175. 

Slaves,  recovery  of,  39. 

Slidell,  John,  minister  to  Mexico,  169. 

Social  Contract,  theory,  50. 

Socialism,  48. 

Sommersett  's  Case,  97. 

South,  sentiment  on  slavery,  98-101,  103;  demand  for  guaran- 
tees, 104;  balance  of  power,  105. 

South  America,  revolutions,  85. 

South  Carolina,  religious  tests,  73;  suffrage,  74;  qualifications 
for  office,  75-76;  initiates  secession  movement,  108. 

Spain,  and  American  Ee volution,  17. 

St.  John,  island  of.     See  Danish  Islands. 

St.  Thomas,  Island  of.     See  Danish  Islands. 

States,  prohibitions  upon,  35;  decision  of  controversies  be- 
tween, 38;  guaranteed  republican  form  of  government,  39; 
democratic  changes,  71. 

States'  Eights,  56,  105. 

Story,  Mr.  Justice,  on  jurisdiction  of  crimes,  63. 

Suffrage,  disappearance  of  restrictions,  72,  75;  extension  to 
freedmen,  131,  133. 

Sumner,  theory  of  State  suicide,  130. 

Sumter,  Fort.     See  Fort  Sumter. 

Supreme  Court,  Swiss,  43. 

Supreme  Court,  U.  S.,  great  services,  28;  appointive  judges, 
37;  jurisdiction,  38;  preservative  influence,  66,  134;  de- 
clares Missouri  Compromise  unconstitutional,  28,  107;  sus- 
tains blockade,  120;  prevented  from  reviewing  Eecon- 
struction  Acts,  132;  upholds  President  Cleveland's  action 
in  Chicago  Strike,  137. 

Swift  V.  Tyson,  Case  of,  58. 

Switzerland,  federal  union,  42,  43. 


INDEX  217 

Talleyrand,  and  Louisiana,  157. 

Taney,  Chief  Justice,  dissenting  opinion  in  Prize  Cases,  120; 
opinion  in  Merryman's  case,  122. 

Taxation,  powers  of,  under  U.  S.  Constitution,  33,  36. 

Taylor,  General,  and  Mexican  War,  170-172. 

Territories,  powers  of  Congress  over,  39. 

Tests,  Religious.     See  Eeligious  tests. 

Texas,  annexation,  167-169,  173,  175. 

Thirteenth  Amendment,  129. 

Tories,  question  of  compensating,  24. 

Treaties,  French  alliance,  19,  150  j  with  Great  Britain,  21,  26, 
144;  with  Mexico,  172;  with  Panama,  192;  with  Russia, 
181;  with  Spain,  183-187,  192;  naturalization,  90. 

Treaty-making  power,  sweep  of,  37,  136. 

Tutuila,  Island  of.     See  Samoan  Islands. 

Ultimate  verities,  12. 

Unconstitutional  legislation,  80;  Missouri  Compromise,  107;  re- 
view of  Reconstruction  Acts  prevented,  132. 

Union,  demand  for  preservation,  126-128. 

Union,  National.     See  National  Union. 

Union  Party,  127-128. 

United  States,  characteristics  of  people,  12-13,  18,  195;  early 
boundaries,  21,  151;  constitutional  powers,  32-42;  wars, 
198;  arbitration,  198-200. 

Venezuelan  boundary,  and  Monroe  Doctrine,  139. 

Vermont,  doctrine  of  natural  rights,  72;  election  of  judges  by 
legislature,  76. 

Vienna  Congress,  90. 

Virginia,  declarations  of  natural  rights,  71 ;  suffrage,  75 ;  quali- 
fications for  -office,  75-76;  emancipation  movement,  100; 
secession,  108,  117,  119. 

War,  power  to  declare,  34;  with  Mexico,  93,  169-172;  pre- 
ventive measures,  203. 

Wars,  of  United  States,  197-198.     See  War. 

Washington,  George,  on  Paine  ^s  Common  Sense,  15 ;  opposed  to 
slavery,  98. 


218  INDEX 

Webster,  argument  in  Dartmouth  College  case,  69;   speech  at 

Kossuth  banquet,  88 ;  nationalism,  94-95. 
Weights  and  measures,  34. 

West,  new  States,  popular  institutions  of,  75-76. 
West  Florida,  160,  162,  163,  166,  167. 
west  Indies,  Spanish,  acquisition,  183-187. 
Wharton,  Francis,  on  federal  jurisdiction  of  crimes,  61;  jest 

as  to  Democrats  in  Massachusetts,  89. 
Whigs,  nomination  of  Taylor,  94. 

Yucatan,  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  138,  193. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


^SSm 


AN  INITIAL  PINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


^Pf?   ^0  1940 


17--T 


a    li^ 


^W3  6^g.j,^^ 


'-PAN  p.^^^ 


»       1 


D  DEC13'69-3PW 


QO0ci'!):ws 


fmti^ 


npT  9m9Ui 


*/y^t^:^y:\ 


Due  end  of  5;iT1^^**^ 


2  012  10  AW,,  I 


REC^D  I  n   SFP 


BECCltL    MAR    fe"?5 


LD  21-100m-7,'39(402K) 


/ 


i,^ 


-VuU-   •'L 


YB  08284 


/  ■    I 


2412Hii 


TTlCrV^-^. 


